Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin, I should like, with every respect, to ask for the mercy of brief questions and answers.

SCOTLAND

Glasgow East End Project

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make a progress report on the Glasgow East End Project.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The organisational planning has been completed and the participating authorities—that is, the regional and district councils, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Special Housing Association-have agreed the priorities for early action. The first work on site, involving new house building and tenement rehabilitation, will start in June and other early projects will follow quickly.

Mr. McMillan: Can the Minister assure the House that the new administration in Glasgow will not fold up that project? Does he recall that many thousands of people went without good houses because a previous administration changed, and is he aware that that danger still exists.

Mr. Brown: I cannot give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance but, as far as I know, the new administration has made no declaration or attempt to change the policy on East End. I should certainly regret it if that happened. The new administration has given no indication that it will do other than support

the constructive attempts of the previous administration in relation to East End.

Mr. Selby: Is my hon. Friend aware—in spite of the answer he has just given—of the experience in 1968–70, when there was a similar council, that is, a Conservative one supported by the Scottish National Party, and when the number of houses built in Glasgow dropped to zero? Does he realise that it has taken us many years to recover from that situation?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the disastrous housing policies of the Tories when they were in power in Glasgow before, but it is only fair to point out that the housing problems in Glasgow have changed. There have been enormous improvements during the last 10 years, and we can only wait and see what the new administration will attempt to do.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that his hon. Friends have been talking rubbish, and will he indicate the total number of housing completions in Glasgow last year when there was a Labour council and a Labour Government?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on rubbish. I must add, in the light of what I have just said, that nobody on the Government Benches is playing the numbers game. The quality and availability of the right houses in the right place are more important factors in framing a housing policy.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has for reducing unemployment in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I believe the economic policies that we are pursuing offer the best prospects of reducing unemployment. At the same time, we have recently announced the allocation of substantial additional resources to our programme of special employment and training measures designed to limit the impact of unemployment in the coming months. Such measures have already helped more than 54,000 people in Scotland.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister realise that whatever measures the Government take they are pouring water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom? Has he any comment to make on the position of Beattie's biscuit factory in Glasgow, which is a subsidiary of Rank Hovis McDougall, because that factory is closing with a loss of 250 jobs? Why did the Government refuse to give temporary employment subsidy to keep that company going?

Mr. MacKenzie: On the first part of that question, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be as encouraged as I have been by the fact that unemployment fell by 6,000 during the past month. One does not want to jump over the moon about such figures, but a cautious optimism is worth while.
As for Beattie's, that factory has sustained a substantial loss for many years. I have seen the management there and the people concerned, but no application was made to the Scottish Office for temporary employment subsidy. Such an application would have been made to the Department of Employment. We were ready to give any assistance required, but any decision taken must be one of purely commercial judgment for the company itself.

Mr. Sillars: Are the Government yet in a position to give an assessment of Strathclyde Regional Council's prediction that the West of Scotland will lose 70,000 jobs in manufacturing industry between 1976 and 1983?

Mr. MacKenzie: We have already indicated our response to Strathclyde Regional Council. That is a rather pessimistic outlook, allowing for the fact that we have been doing rather better in the manufacturing sectors and exports. I hope that that will continue.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We appreciate the extension of special development area status to Arbroath, but does not the Minister consider that it should be extended to Brechin, which, as the Minister knows and has fairly acknowledged, will face difficult employment prospects in the months ahead?

Mr. MacKenzie: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern about Brechin. He and others have spoken to me about it. But no doubt he will also appreciate that

with our limited resources we cannot make every area in the country a development area or a special development area. That would negate the fundamental aim of the regional policy and the initiatives that come from it. I hope that the visit that I have promised to Brechin and the work that has already been done will go some way to ameliorate the difficult conditions in that area.

Mr. David Steel: What assessment has the Scottish Office made of the effect on unemployment of the withdrawal of the regional employment premium?

Mr. MacKenzie: It has been explained to the right hon. Gentleman on numerous occasions that one of the reasons why we decided to withdraw the premium was so that we could spend the resources thereby released on other things, such as increasing the money available to the Scottish Development Agency and the work creation programme.

Mr. Dalyell: Will there be a Government statement soon on the proposals now before the Scottish Development Department for a foundry in Central Scotland to serve not only the motor industry but other industries as well?

Mr. MacKenzie: Any application for a foundry would come to the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend knows that foundry developments have taken place in two major plants in the past year. Any further announcement will be made in the normal way.

Mr. Younger: Is it not deeply disappointing that after three years of Socialist administration we have the highest ever level of unemployment and no improvement in the seasonal figure for the latest month? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is the view of almost all commentators that this situation is due to the Government's policy of knocking the stuffing out of British industry and preventing it from providing more jobs in Scotland? Will he pay some attention to this point?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that most commentators on both sides of industry agree that we are in the midst of an international recession and that conditions in the United Kingdom are little different from those in other parts of the world.


The measures that we have put forward recently to improve employment prospects in Scotland, including our proposals for British Leyland, Chrysler and the Scottish Development Agency, have not been supported by the Opposition. Indeed, there has been total opposition from the Conservatives to the initiatives that the Government have taken.

A29, A929/A94 (Detrunking)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his decision on the proposals to detrunk route A92 from Dundee to Stonehaven and to trunk routes A929/A94 from Dundee to Forfar and Stonehaven; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The City of Dundee District Council has objected to the order and consequently a public local inquiry is being arranged in accordance with the statutory requirements. Unless the objection is withdrawn, my right hon. Friend cannot reach a decision until he has considered the report of the inquiry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are still a number of improvements to carry out on the A92, the current trunk road, including the provision of the Montrose relief road? Can he give an assurance that if the detrunking scheme goes ahead—and the Tayside Regional Council has given its approval—the proposal will be supported and helped as soon as possible?

Mr. McElhone: It will be for the Tayside Regional Council to maintain the road in a suitable condition if it is detrunked. I have no plans for major improvements of this road in the short term.

Mr. Welsh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his plans will put extra pressure on the already inadequate Dundee-Arbroath road, especially at the village of Muirdrum, which is an accident black spot where three children under the age of 10 have been knocked down in the past three years? May I convey to him the anger felt by the villagers that no improvements are planned and that the bypass, which has been promised since the last war, is still no nearer?

Mr. McElhone: This may be a matter for the local public inquiry if the Dundee District Council does not withdraw its objection. My noble Friend who looks after day-to-day matters concerning roads will be discussing this problem with the district council.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fines

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of fines imposed in Scottish courts which has been written off as irrecoverable debts since the introduction of payments of fines by instalments; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Since 1971, when the Scottish Courts Administration was set up, the total amount of fines which has been written off in the sheriff courts as irrecoverable three years after their imposition is £88,424. The total amount of fines imposed during that period was nearly £11½million. The amount written off, therefore, represents less than 1 per cent. of this figure. Corresponding information about burgh and justice of the peace courts, and the district courts that replaced them on 16th May 1975, is not available.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if figures from other courts were available and were added to the figures that he has quoted, they would produce a substantial sum of money? Does this not indicate that hooligans, ruffians, thugs and other undesirables are getting off scot-free after committing offences against society and decent people? Is it not about time that we examined alternative means of making guilty persons pay?

Mr. Ewing: No one claims a monopoly of concern for law enforcement. We are all deeply concerned about it, and that includes concern about fines enforcement. My hon. Friend should bear in mind that the courts, to which no information is available, have only a limited ability to apply fines, so even if the information were available it would not produce the result that my hon. Friend forecasts.
The subject of fines enforcement was considered by the Scottish Council on Crime and the Thompson Committee. We are looking at it in our consideration of possible legislative measures on criminal procedure.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the largest irrecoverable debt that he owes in Scotland is to the police force, which brings the criminals to justice? Is he not greatly concerned about reports of very low morale and the number of resignations from the police force in Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: I can claim with some justification and pride that no junior Minister has given more time and attention to the needs and requests of the police in Scotland than I. I have worked hard over the past three years to establish the good relationship that the Government have with the Scottish Police Federation. I see no evidence of low morale. Too many people are trying to talk down the police force. The police do not enjoy that, and all the evidence is that the morale of the police in Scotland is high.

Kessock Bridge

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotand what is the latest estimate of the time scale in the construction of the Kessock Bridge; and if he will make his promised statement.

Mr. McElhone: I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on 28th April.

Mr. Gray: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that he had something to add? Will he confirm or deny that the tenders that have been received for the Kessock Bridge two years after they were originally asked for appear to be £10 million lower than the original offers? Does this not indicate a gross lack of management by his Department of the criteria on which it asked for offers originally?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a lot of nonsense. He said at a previous Question Time that this matter was decided in 1971 and he knows which party was in power then. In the three years between 1971 and 1974 the Government of the day did nothing. We

have gone as far as getting tenders, and we expect to choose a contractor once we have considered the tenders in great detail, possibly in about two months' time.

Mr. Carmichael: Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the design of the bridge is more aesthetically pleasing than was the bridge built at Ballachulish?

Mr. McElhone: It is recognised that previous tenders and designs were unacceptable. We now have positive tenders and they are being examined as quickly as possible. I cannot comment on the aesthetic quality of designs. I think that the desire of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and many others in the area is to get the bridge started as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gray: In view of the totally inadequate reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

South Angus

Mr. Welsh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to South Angus.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Welsh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the gallant fight by local parents who wish to retain the Panbride Primary School as the rural primary school? Is he aware that the school is being closed because of the meanness of the pathetic Tory-controlled regional council in what is purely an accountancy exercise? When does the hon. Gentleman expect to make an announcement about the school?

Mr. MacKenzie: I can agree with one comment—Tory authorities are mean. The problem raised by the hon. Member is one that must be dealt with initially by the regional authorities. If the hon. Member asks a specific Question about that, I shall be happy to deal with it.

Mr. Lipton: If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ever proposes to pay a visit to Angus, will he give a solemn undertaking that there will be no command broadcast on Scottish television to celebrate his action?

Mr. MacKenzie: As I have said, my right hon. Friend has at present no plans


to visit South Angus. If he had, I doubt whether he would be put on a Royal Command show. I understand that the Scottish National Party is holding its conference this weekend. I am sure that if my hon. Friend watches that he will find it highly entertaining.

Glasgow, Springburn

Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit the Glasgow, Springburn, constituency.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Buchanan: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that that reply will be regarded as disappointing in my constituency. Is he aware that if he, or any of his colleagues, visited Springburn he would find some of the best industrial and housing sites in the West of Scotland? In view of the limits imposed on public expenditure, will my hon. Friend use his good offices to encourage investment from other sources to allow redevelopment of Springburn to proceed as planned?

Mr. MacKenzie: I visit Springburn every weekend. My mother-in-law lives there and I visit her regularly. I am conscious of the problems of the Spring-burn area—not in connection with my mother-in-law, but the industrial difficulties that my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Scottish Development Agency has made substantial progress at Cowlairs, for example. We shall be happy to do all we can to encourage further industrial development.

Mr. Craigen: Notwithstanding his mother-in-law's blandishments, will my hon. Friend accept that his recent visit to Hugh Smith (Glasgow) Ltd. was welcome? Can he give an assurance that he will have early discussions with the Scottish Development Agency about the growing demand for small factories of between 2,000 and 5,000 sq. ft.?

Mr. MacKenzie: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about my recent visit to his constituency. We are in constant discussion with the Scottish Development Agency about a variety of factors. The provision of small manufacturing and service units, for which there is a demand, is being borne in mind by the Agency.

Football Match (Chile)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests from organisations he has received in a recent period concerning the forthcoming football match in Chile, in which a representative Scottish team may participate at Santiago Stadium.

Mr. McElhone: Since December 1976, when the Scottish Football Association announced the details of the South American tour, my right hon. Friend has received representations from 29 organisations expressing concern about the proposed match in the Santiago Stadium.

Mr. Bidwell: May I assure my hon. Friend that my English and non-English constituents, of whom there are many, have nothing but the most warm-hearted appreciation of the historic record of the Scottish people in their dedication to the principles of democracy, human freedom and liberty? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is much dismay that the Scottish Football Association has not announced that it is to call off plans to stage a football match in this blood soaked Santiago Stadium? Will my hon. Friend press the Football Association to call off the match? Is he aware that some trade unionists, including many in the trade union that I represent, are planning to do their level best to ensure that the match does not take place and that the football team does not travel?

Mr. McElhone: I am grateful for those kind comments about the Scottish people by my English colleague. But I must tell him that the Government cannot interfere in sporting affairs. I have expressed my deep concern to the SFA about the proposed match. I hope that even at this eleventh hour it will reconsider its proposal to play at the stadium.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable support in Scotland for the SFA from people who do not necessarily support the Government of Chile but who are sickened by the hypocrisy of the Labour Party and Left-wing Members who never seem to complain when Scottish teams and others play Communist dictatorships, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia, which in some cases are soaked in blood? Will the Minister dissociate himself from that


hypocritical attitude which adopts double standards?

Mr. McElhone: Not for the first time, the hon. Member talks about hypocrisy and double standards. But he knows that from time to time I have called him the ace of double standards. My constituency is next to his. When one hears him speaking of the Pakistani population in Glasgow and one knows his attitude towards race, Rhodesia and other questions, one can understand what hypocrisy means.
I have made my answer clear. I sit on a working party with the SFA. I have made it known, although I have deep respect for the officials of the SFA, that I deeply regret their misjudgment in deciding to accept an invitation to play in this stadium, where there have been some terrible incidents. I hope that there will be a change of attitude and that the match will not go ahead.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot tell the Scottish Football Association what it must do. However, could he ask the association at least to take into account the feelings of the Scottish footballers? Does he agree that if they were given the facts, they might have some say in what is to happen about the proposed tour?

Mr. McElhone: I must be frank and honest with my hon. Friend. I have to tell him that a poll organised by the Scottish Professional Footballers' Association resulted in 70 per cent. of the membership saying "Yes" to the game in Chile. I must be fair and honest about that. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps the players did not get all the facts of the situation. I am still hoping—and I repeat this—that the SFA will reconsider the decision to play in the Santiago Stadium.

Mr. Galbraith: Would it not be better if politicians stuck to politics and allowed sportsmen to get on with the game?

Mr. McElhone: Sometimes when I see the hon. Member's antics I do not know whether he is a sportsman or a politician. I do not intend to change my attitude. I do not wish to repeat what I have said.

Mr. Buchan: I thank my hon. Friend for the strong statement of disapproval that he has made today and previously. I

also thank the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Is it not the case that the SFA asked for a judgment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before going ahead and that that judgment was given against the match? Is it not shameful that the SFA should ignore the wishes of the Government and the people?
May I remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that when so-called Left-wingers protest against oppression, bloodshed and tryanny they do so irrespective of the régime concerned and whether it is in the East or the West? There is blood on the ground of the stadium upon which the hon. Member is asking our young Scottish football players to perform.

Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend has played a notable part in the campaign. He is correct about the Foreign Office and its advice. I can only repeat that I hope that the SFA will still change its mind, even at this eleventh hour.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister ever express disapproval of Scottish football teams playing behind the Iron Curtain, where there is a universal denial of human rights?

Mr. McElhone: I think that the hon. Member does not follow football as much as some of us do. He may well remember the courageous stand by the Glasgow Celtic Football Club, a stand which most of us on the Government side of the House supported. I say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that I have taken a stand against Russia concerning the Jews and I have expressed my disapproval in writing and in speeches. It is not a one-sided stand as far as I am concerned.

Council House Sales

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has had from housing authorities to sell council houses since October 1974; how many of these applications have been granted; and what was the average time taken by his Department to give substantive replies to these applications.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Since July 1974, when general consent was withdrawn, until 30th April 1977, 565 applications were received and 330 granted. Elapsed


time between proposals and replies varied between two and 10 weeks, according to the form of the proposals and the complexities which they raised.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that in the recent district elections Scotland showed perfectly clearly that it felt that people ought to have a right to buy the home in which they live? Will he assure the House that it will be no part of the present Government's policy to frustrate the legitimate aims of properly elected councils in this matter?

Mr. Brown: I think that it is stretching it a bit to suggest that that was the only issue, or, indeed, the main issue, that inflenced people's voting patterns in the recent district elections. We shall be looking at this topic in the context of any possible changes that might follow the review of housing policy that will be dealt with in our Green Paper. There will be adequate time to discuss future housing plans, but I can give an assurance now that there will be no blanket approval for the indiscriminate wholesale selling of council houses.

Mr. Small: Does my hon. Friend know of any man who has honey on his hands and does not want to lick it off at the earliest possible moment? My response to the style of the Question is that I anticipate a wholesale selling of houses in Drumchapel, Castlemilk and Easter house.

Mr. Brown: If I understand my hon. Friend's question, I think that what he was asking was whether there is any evidence, in the three largest housing schemes in Scotland, of a widespread demand to buy houses. The answer is a definite "No".

Mr. Watt: We have all heard of inflation, but does the hon. Gentleman regard it as reasonable that the price of a local authority house that was offered for sale at £5,800 in 1974 should have risen now to £10,000?

Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wasting Question Time. [Interruption.] We are now dealing with Question No. 10. The hon. Gentleman is wasting Question Time when he asks me a hypothetical question about a house about which I have no knowledge.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates of the fall in production in agriculture have been made owing to the CAP prices recently announced.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The decisions on farm support prices and related arrangements assure our farmers of a fair return for their labours and should encourage them to produce more food at prices the consumer can afford.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that that is not my experience from talking to at least my local farmers? They are now much concerned about the future, because costs in farming are rapidly overhauling whatever increase there is in prices. There is grave concern about the future, which will undoubtedly end in a fall in production. Will the Minister continue the efforts in Brussels to get some amendments to the CAP, so that these factors are taken into account?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that the future of agriculture depends entirely on what happens in Brussels, although obviously that plays a large part in influencing the future of the industry. I have confidence in the industry. It is too important an industry for any Government to disregard its contribution. However, what I have noticed is that sometimes farmers tell one things that are slightly different from the accounts that they show at the end of the year.

Mr. Sillars: Given the state of consumers and given the state of farmers—and they are both in a bad state—is it not the situation that neither can afford a continuation of the CAP?

Mr. Brown: The farmers are not in a bad state. By exaggeration the hon. Gentleman does no credit to the genuine problems that face farmers. It is equally untrue to suggest that the rise in prices over the past six months has been entirely due to the CAP. In fact, the products covered by the CAP represent a very small proportion of the retail price index for food.

Mr. Welsh: If the Minister is so happy with Scottish agriculture at present, will


he say which sectors of Scottish agriculture are up to the target set in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" and which are not? Is he aware of the growing financial discrepancy between returns for crops and returns for livestock? Is he satisfied with these trends?

Mr. Brown: No. I am certainly concerned about the fall in production. Given reasonable circumstances this year, I think that we should see improvements. Obviously, when there is a fall in production we must make every effort in the sectors where that is evident—though it is not as significant or as widespread in all sections of the industry. However, certainly I am disappointed. I hope that we shall get back on target this year and in succeeding years.

Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that among farmers in the Kilmarnock area there is much more concern about the savage increases in rents by the local landowner, Kilmarnock Estates, owned by Lord Howard de Walden, than there is about the CAP prices? There is a limit to what we can do about the CAP, but surely we can do something about these rent increases at home.

Mr. Brown: I quite agree. My right hon. Friend highlights one of the indicators that suggest that there is still a large degree of confidence in agriculture, such as the applications for capital grants for replacement stock, and there is no shortage of applicants when any farm becomes vacant.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did the hon. Gentleman say that he thought that prices reflected a fair return to producers? If so, will he enlarge upon that statement and relate that to the prices being paid to pig producers?

Mr. Brown: I do not remember what I said about that. I do not think that what I said was said in the way in which the hon. Gentleman put it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Tell us what it was.

Mr. Brown: I recognise, frankly, that pig production is the one section of the industry that is going through an extremely difficult situation at present. As

the hon. Gentleman knows—because he was present here yesterday—a statement will be made this week, or the House will be informed by my right hon. Friend, of what action is being taken through the efforts of my right hon. Friend and Commissioner Gundelach.

Bridge of Earn

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Bridge of Earn.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Crawford: Is the rundown of the Bridge of Earn Hospital symptomatic of the general Scottish Office thinking that small hospitals serving local communities should be closed? If that is so, does the Minister agree that to phase out small hospitals serving local communities is a scandalous and retrograde step?

Mr. MacKenzie: Certainly it is not the policy of the Scottish Office to phase out small hospitals just because they happen to be small hospitals. As I understand it, an overall plan for health services in the Tayside area has envisaged the eventual replacement of the Bridge of Earn Hospital by a new district general hospital at Perth, which we think will serve a wider area.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious worry in Tayside, not only in Bridge of Earn but in Brechin, about Stracathro Hospital in particular, that the building and development of Nine Wells Hospital, in Dundee, is causing excessive centralisation and leading to lengthening waiting lists for patients in a large district, and is causing people to think that the hospital board and the Government are more concerned with statistics and less concerned with individuals, as patients, who have to be treated as human beings?

Mr. MacKenzie: It is the policy that all patients should certainly be treated as human beings and, indeed, cared for appropriately. In regard to the whole question of centralisation and the hospital at Dundee, if my memory serves me rightly, that was not one of the initiatives taken by the present Government, or by an Administration of this colour of days


past. However, the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my reply to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) a few moments ago, when I said that plans are now afoot for a hospital at Perth, which indicate that not all the hospital facilities are to be centred in the Dundee area.

Dr. M. S. Miller: One must consider, of course, that it is very important that patients should be looked upon and treated as human beings, but it is also very important that patients should have the best treatment that is available. That treatment, with the highest scientific and technological advance, can be provided only in a place that has a large catchment area, otherwise the skills are not available. Nice as cottage hospitals may be from the romantic point of view, and though they have a part to play, they cannot take the place of hospitals to which the skills are drawn if the area is a large catchment area.

Mr. MacKenzie: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. It is right that there is a place for small hospitals, but I think that we all understand that a concentration of skills is extremely valuable for those who have serious illnesses.

Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it was while the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) was at the Scottish Office that Nine Wells was started upon—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not true.

Mr. William Ross: —and the first tenders were taken in? Does my hon. Friend agree that all the facts about centralisation were known when the Tory Government started on the project?

Mr. MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend backs up what I said earlier. What my right hon. Friend has just said is my recollection of what happened some years ago.

Geriatric Patients

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the continued use of older non-purpose built buildings as old folk's homes and geriatric hospitals.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Each case must be considered on its merits, taking account of

the condition and location of the building, the availability of finance for new buildings, and other priorities. These are matters for the local authority or health board and where my right hon. Friend's approval is necessary in respect of the proposed closure of a hospital in an old building he would take the same factors into account. Generally, however, a purpose-designed home or geriatric hospital can provide better and safer conditions for both patients and staff.

Mr. Johnston: Does the Minister agree that there might be some case for establishing some guidelines? It seems that the better facilities and greater safety produced by closing an older building and spending a lot of money on a new building result in a margin of difference not all that great. Sometimes that margin does not justify the expenditure of limited resources that can be used in other and more productive ways.

Mr. Ewing: One of the difficulties is that when an old building has to be brought up to standard to meet fire safety regulations and all the other relevant standards the cost involved is quite substantial. The cost for one hospital that I have in mind would be between £160,000 and £170,000. We have to measure whether it is worth spending that sort of money when for about £350,000 we can get a purpose-built unit with 30 beds, which would obviously last a great deal longer. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. His comments will be given consideration in any decision that we have to make.

Economic Situation

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects in Scotland.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: As in the United Kingdom as a whole, economic growth in Scotland is expected to be concentrated in manufacturing industry with exports and investment providing the main impetus. It is therefore encouraging to note that the April CBI survey for Scotland showed a sharp improvement in investment intentions from January, and also a buoyant export prospect.

Mr. Taylor: When does the Minister expect seasonally adjusted unemployment


to improve? Will he take into account some of the island areas, where the economies are being severely eroded by recent increases in freight costs? On a more topical note, it is likely that power supplies in Scotland for industry and domestic users will be disrupted because of the present strikes.

Mr. MacKenzie: The economies of the Islands were considered by the House not so many weeks ago when we discussed the charges of the Scottish Transport Group. In discussing these charges it is important to bear in mind the contribution that the Government have made and the consideration that the Scottish Transport Group gave to the carrying of freight to the Islands. It is also important to remember the substantial contribution that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is making in the Highlands and Islands and the number of important initiatives that it has announced over the past few years.
It would be wrong for me to make any public comment about the dispute now taking place. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that the Government are conscious of the problem, as are the agencies involved in bringing the dispute to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the economy in Aberdeen is buoyant because of oil-related industry, but that there is a structural decline in non-oil-related industry in Aberdeen and the surrounding areas? Is my hon. Friend aware that he will come under increasing pressure to change his mind and to keep Aberdeen a development area? In the meantime, will he give an assurance that any application for assistance that comes forward will be acted upon speedily and that there will be no delay?

Mr. MacKenzie: I know how disappointed my hon. Friend was about our decision. However, I hope that he will appreciate that if we were to make every area within the country a development area, or a special development area, such status would be of no value. We decided to downgrade Aberdeen in the hope that by so doing we should be able to upgrade, for example, Dundee, Cumnock, Arbroath and Kilbirnie. Aberdeen still

enjoys the considerable benefits that flow from intermediate status. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that any application that comes to me for selective financial assistance will be considered quickly and favourably.

Mr. Crawford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a strong currency is to be preferred to a weak currency in terms of economic growth? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the economic growth of Scotland would be better promoted by a strong Scots pound and a self-governing Scotland than by being tied to the weak United Kingdom pound?

Mr. MacKenzie: I have heard this notion floated by the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions and I have heard it quoted by a number of his hon. Friends. With great respect, I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as an expert on banking matters. I have listened with considerable care to the attitude of the Scottish banks. To put not too fine a point on it, they regard the hon. Gentleman's essays into this area as a load of rubbish.

Mr. Buchan: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, far from the hon. Gentleman being regarded as a financial expert, the banks and every other financial institution regard the hon. Gentleman's views with contempt? They hailed as proof of their case the most recent publication entitled "Scotland 1980", which, they claim, has blown a complete hole in the SNP's case.
To revert to more serious matters, is my hon. Friend aware that there is still great anxiety in my area about the future of Drax B? Now that the promise has been given by the Prime Minister that the order for the Drax B power station will take place, will my hon. Friend stress to my right hon. Friend that it is speed that is now required if we are to avoid any lay-offs?

Mr. MacKenzie: I know of my hon. Friend's concern about Drax B. He has come with other to see me about it on a number of occasions during the past few months. I can assure him that the Government are giving it the speediest consideration. I think that my hon. Friend knows that there are difficulties. However, we still hope to make an announcement as quickly as possible.

Mr. Watt: When will the Government take a lesson from Norway and insist that a decent percentage of oil-related jobs and orders come to Scottish manufacturers?

Mr. MacKenzie: There are already between 55,000 and 65,000 people employed in Scotland, either directly or indirectly, in the exploration and exploitation of the oil in the North Sea. In Glasgow, which, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, is in Scotland, we have the Offshore Supplies Office, which indicates to all concerned the advantages of using Scottish firms wherever possible.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we to understand from the answer to Question No. 2 that the proposals and discussions on the foundry in Central Scotland have not reached Ministers' desks and have not been discussed by Ministers?

Mr. MacKenzie: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind, I shall be happy to consider it if he writes to me or tables a Question.

Royal Hospital for Sick Children

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to publish the results of his inquiries into the construction deficiencies at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children; and if he will ensure full public disclosure of these deficiencies.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Substantial progress has been made in establishing the causes of the various building defects which have come to light at this hospital. These investigations, which are being carried out by the Greater Glasgow Health Board with the help of independent consultants, will continue concurrently with the extensive remedial works which have still to be undertaken and for which the relevant tender documents are now being instructed or are in course of preparation.
Since it is certain that the defects will be the subject of arbitration or litigation, it would be inappropriate to publish at this juncture the results of the board's investigations to date.

Mr. Carmichael: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now over seven months since he gave me almost the same reply? The building work at this hospital is an absolute disgrace and brings no credit to the building industry, from the

youngest apprentice to the most senior architect and engineer. How long does the sub judice rule keep facts such as these from the public, who are entitled to know?

Mr. Ewing: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the time that has been taken to resolve this matter. In the past week I have given the issue the closest possible consideration. In view of the possibility of the matter going to litigation, it is essential that the Greater Glasgow Health Board establishes the facts to the best of its ability to strengthen its case when the time comes.

Mr. Carmichael: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION

Mr. Gray: asked the Lord Advocate when he proposes to meet the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. and learned Friend met the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission on 28th April of this year. I understand that he expects to meet the chairman and the other members of the Commission early in July.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for answering this Question. The Lord Advocate did me the courtesy of advising me that he had to be in Edinburgh today, and I accept the situation. When the next meeting takes place, will the Lord Advocate ask the chairman whether he is satisfied with the way in which the law is at present operating regarding the information that has to be disclosed by companies that are registered outwith the United Kingdom when they take an active part in land transactions within the United Kingdom? Is he aware of the considerable concern in my constituency, where a sandbank off Easter Ross has appreciated in value by no less than 1,200 per cent. in 14 months—the value rising from £50,000 to £600,000—at a time when it seems almost impossible to detemine who controls the companies in question?

Mr. MacKenzie: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but I do not think that this is a matter to be discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend when he meets the Chairman of the Law Commission. It falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman cares to pursue the matter with me, I shall be happy to answer the question.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister ask the Lord Advocate, when he next meets the Chairman of the Law Commission, to discuss the effects of the law of libel as it impinges on distributors of magazines? Although certain safeguards have been introduced into the law, it still seems that distributors may be liable for libels that they could not detect. Will he look into that matter again?

Mr. MacKenzie: I shall pass on that point to the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a little surprising that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) should express concern about what is a perfectly legitimate and integral part of capitalist land speculation? Since the Minister has said that the matter is really one for the Secretary of State rather than the Lord Advocate, will he take the obvious remedy and nationalise the land, thus putting an end to this kind of speculation?

Mr. MacKenzie: We have no immediate plans to nationalise the land.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Minister ask the Lord Advocate to put on the agenda of the Law Commission the newly-developing question of the jurisdiction of Scots law on North Sea oil development contracts, bearing in mind that it appears that some companies—even those controlled by the Government, or at least with a Government interest—are opting out of Scots law jurisdiction? Could not that be a matter that the Lord Advocate would wish the Law Commission to look at?

Mr. MacKenzie: Without prior notice of that question it is very difficult for me to give a direct reply. However, I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister reconsider his reply to our hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about the public ownership of land? Would that not be the most effective way of dealing with the problem of Lord Howard de Walden, who was mentioned by our right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and whose favourite slogan at the last election was "It's Scotland's soil"? Is that not precisely the problem—that it is not Scotland's soil?

Mr. MacKenzie: I do not think that I can change the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

SCOTLAND

Roads

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from private owners of housing property urging him to advise regional councils' highway authorities to bring some of the older roads in such housing areas into the programme of roads and have them added to the regional list of highways.

Mr. McElhone: None. My right hon. Friend is not aware that this is a problem causing general concern.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some of the streets or roads that I have in mind, not one of the original owners is in possession? Is he also aware that the regional road authorities expect the present owners to bring their roads up to regulation standards? This cannot be done unless they get on to the list of highways. Since that would also mean great cost—sometimes tens of thousands of pounds—for groups of owners, such people cannot bear the burden. Will he bring in some form of road improvement scheme?

Mr. McElhone: I have a certain sympathy with my hon. Friend's views, but only the regional council can assess the situation properly. It would be wrong for the Secretary of State to intervene in such local matters.

Lossiemouth

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Lossiemouth.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mrs. Ewing: Is that not a pity, considering that Lossiemouth was the home of a famous Labour Prime Minister, whose daughter, who votes for the Labour Party, still lives there? Is the Minister aware that Lossiemouth fishermen were part of the contingent that visited Brussels, dedicated to the principle that without a 50-mile exclusive limit Lossiemouth would become a ghost town? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. Although the right to veto on the EEC fishing policy was given away by the Conservative Party and not renegotiated by his own party, does the Minister not consider that the time has come to threaten a right of veto on some other matter if we do not get a 50-mile limit for our fishemen?

Mr. MacKenzie: If my right hon. Friend visited all the places that he is asked to visit these days, he would never be able to come to the House at all. [Interruption.] I know that some Opposition Members would like that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Stale who deals with fishing matters is here and will have noted what the hon. Lady has said. The Government's position on this question has been stated clearly on numerous occasions both by the Secretary of State for Scotland and by the Minister of Agriculture. I have heard about the demonstration last week and the impact made by some of the Scottish representatives.

Mr. Younger: Will the Minister encourage his right hon. Friend to spend some of the Whitsun Recess visiting Lossiemouth and other centres of the fishing industry? Is he aware that every party in the House supports the stand that the Government are taking over the common fisheries policy? Would it not therefore be valuable if the Secretary of State went around the fishing communities so as to ensure that every possible argument is presented at the next meeting, and so that our friends in Europe will come to see the exclusive control of our own 50-mile limits as an essential national interest?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister of Agriculture told the House last week that he would again be meeting Fisheries Ministers on 27th June. During the recess my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be visiting

a number of fishing areas and having discussions with these people. Those views will be expressed at the meeting to which I referred.

School Leavers

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the prospects of employment for school leavers in the summer.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Long-term prospects will depend largely upon the successful development of the Government's economic policies, which must in turn be related to world economic conditions. In the shorter term we have introduced a wide programme of measures designed to lessen the impact of unemployment on particularly hard-hit groups, such as the young, and we are urgently considering the proposals for additional assistance on an even more far-reaching scale which are contained in the recently published report of the Manpower Services Commission on Young People and Work.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the dire prospects facing school leavers this summer, will not the Minister accept the view of the House that the empty statement that he has just made is devoid of policy content? As a representative of the interim Government of Scotland, can he not come up with some specific policies to deal with the real human problems that will face those who are about to leave school in the industrial areas of Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: My statement was not an empty statement, nor did it imply any complacency on my part. I can speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we are genuinely and sincerely concerned about prospects for young people who will be leaving school in June. However, we have already taken a number of measures, such as job creation programmes, youth employment subsidies and job release schemes, which make and have made a substantial contribution to providing employment for young people.
Secondly, much work has been done and will continue to be done in providing training for young people. As I said, we hope to respond quickly to the report prepared for our guidance by the Manpower Services Commission. I should add that the Manpower Services Commission's functions in Scotland will be transferred


to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1st July, and we shall have our own response to make in that regard.

Mr. Sillars: Why does the Minister constantly import international dimensions into the arguments about employment? The construction industry is not affected by international consequences of the IMF. Why do the Government not give a massive boost to the construction industry and employ a very large number of young people in the productive side of this industry and, at the same time, increase the number of apprentices and journeymen that we shall require in the next five or six years?

Mr. MacKenzie: Before people decide to build factories they have to have something to produce in them. This is where the international scene is involved. Recently the Chancellor made a number of announcements relating to assistance for the construction industry. We hope that these will make a valuable contribution to employment in this area.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When does the Minister expect to have the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland? Is he not ashamed that after three years of Labour Government we have such an appallingly high rate of unemployment?

Mr. MacKenzie: I, and everyone else on the Government side of the House, regard the present unemployment figures as totally unsatisfactory. The Government have pursued a number of initiatives and we trust that these will reduce the unacceptable level in the future. I shall not make any guesses; I shall leave that to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). That is a problem for him, not for me.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about increases in social security benefits.
In accordance with Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975, I reviewed the present level of benefits before the end of the 1976–77 financial year and formally determined that they needed to be

increased. Increases will be paid from the week beginning 14th November, which is one year after the last uprating.
Under the Act, pensions and other long-term benefits must go up in line with the rise in earnings or prices, whichever is greater, and short-term benefits must rise in line with prices. During the 12 months to November 1977 prices are expected to rise faster than earnings, so the increase in prices will be the benchmark both for long and for short-term benefits.
In the Financial Statement published at the time of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget, prices were forecast to rise by 13 per cent. between the last quarter of 1976 and the last quarter of this year. Having given full consideration to all relevant matters, I am satisfied that this forecast represents the most reliable guide available to me of the likely movement of prices between last November and this November. I expect the rate of inflation to fall during the next six months well below the year-on-year rate represented by the April monthly figure that was published last week. The factors that gave rise to that rate were foreseen and fully taken into account in the forecast I have mentioned.
When this Government came to office in February 1974 pensions stood at £7·75 and £12·50. I have decided that from this November the single pension will go up to £17·50 and the married couples' pension to £28, cash increases of £2·20 and £3·50 over the present rates. This is an increase of nearly 14½ per cent.; and for married couples it equals the biggest cash rise ever—the one we made shortly after returning to power in 1974. The increases will also apply to the standard rate of widow's pensions and to invalidity pensions.
By November we shall have far more than doubled pensions compared with the rates paid by the previous Government. Even after allowing for inflation, by last November this Government had increased the real value of pensions and other benefits by 15 per cent. This November's increase should cover inflation since the last uprating and provide a further increase in real purchasing power.
Many pensioners will also be glad to know that this year, for the first time, the uprating order will change the earnings


rule limit, in accordance with the recent Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The limit will go up from £35 to £40.
Short-term benefits for sickness and unemployment will go up by £1·80, from £12·90 to £14·70, for a single person, and for a married couple they will rise by £2·90, from £20·90 to £23·80. Maternity allowance and injury benefit will go up by the same amounts. Injury benefit will become £17·45 a week for the single person and £26·55 for the married man with a dependent wife.
War and industrial injuries disablement and widow's pensions will go up in line with long-term benefits. For example, the 100 per cent. rate of pension for war disablement or for work injury will go up from £25 to £28·60. There will be comparable increases in the additional allowances which can be paid with these pensions.
I now turn to the civilian disabled. The therapeutic earnings limit, which is applicable to all the incapacity benefits, will go up from £9 to £10 a week.
I am glad to confirm that, from the week beginning 14th November, disabled married women unable to go out to work and unable to do their housework will be eligible for the non-contributory invalidity pension. There will be more details on this later.
The House will also recall that I have already announced an increase of £2 in the mobility allowance with effect from November.
For supplementary benefit, the cash increases in the main scale rates will be the same as those in the related national insurance benefits, and they will come into force at the same time. For the present, at least, there will continue to be five separate children's supplementary benefit rates, related to age. The proposal we have had under consideration to reduce the number of these rates will be studied further as part of the review of the supplementary benefits scheme.
Also in November, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will increase the discretionary additions for extra heating from 70p to 80p, from £1·40 to £1·60, and from £2·10 to £2·40. The discretionary addition for special dietary needs will go

up from 75p to 90p, and from £1·75 to £2·10.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has it in mind to make appropriate adjustments in the needs allowances for the rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes. He will be consulting his Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances.
The full-year cost of the whole of this uprating, including the increase in supplementary benefits and in heating and dietary additions, is just under £1,500 million. Nearly £1,250 million of this will fall on the National Insurance Fund and will be taken into account in the annual review of contributions in the autumn. Any changes in contribution rates for 1978–79 resulting from that review will of course require the approval of Parliament.
For the convenience of the House, full details of all the new rates of benefit are available in the Vote Office and will be circulated in the Official Report. I shall be laying the necessary draft uprating order, under Section 124 of the Social Security Act, after the recess. The order will be accompanied by a Government Actuary's report in the normal way.
I am sure the whole House will welcome these further measures to protect the position of pensioners and other beneficiaries in these difficult times.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the whole House will give a general welcome to his announcement, with its prospect of much-needed help for the most hard-pressed in the community because of the present dreadful rate of inflation.
Is the Secretary of State aware that most people will compare his 14p in the pound pension increase with the 17½p in the pound price increase that has taken place since a year ago? Is he further aware that in the last five months since the last uprating took place, the increase in prices has been almost 9p in the pound? Is he seriously expecting a rise of only just over 5p in the pound between now and next November? Does he realise that, if that is achieved, it will mean an annual rate of inflation over that period of almost exactly 8·4 per cent.? Does


he not recognise that the country will view that figure with some scepticism?
Perhaps the key question is what he will do if it turns out that the rate of inflation is higher than that and if the amount which he has just announced is not enough to comply with the statutory requirement in Section 125 of the Social Security Act. Will he bring forward legislation to change the statutory obligation or is he advised that the Act does not impose on him an obligation to keep the pension in line with prices or earnings?

Mr. Ennals: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's opening words of welcome. I shall try to deal carefully with his questions.
I forecast a 13 per cent. figure November-on-November. The right hon. Gentleman asked how this related to 17·5 per cent., the April-on-April figure. The up-rating of benefits is related to inflation from November to November, not from April to April. The April-on-April figure is no guide to the inflation which we can expect in the second half of this year. It included the price rises due to the Budget—cigarettes, petrol, vehicle excise duty—and increases in rates. Thirdly, the April year-on-year figure is not out of line with our expectations.
The inflation figures are expected to fall sharply later in the year. By November the effect of last year's drought and the falling exchange rate will have completely worked themselves through. The turnabout in the balance of payments means that we have a stable exchange rate. The money supply is firmly under crontrol, and there are other good signs as well. Interest rates are coming down, which has already led to a 1 per cent. fall in mortgage rates, and a further fall is in prospect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to withhold the increase in petrol duty.
For all these reasons, I believe that a figure of 13 per cent. is a realistic forecast, and the House will have noted that the present Government have set out to better the position of pensioners and not simply to tie it to an assessment of the rate of inflation.
Judging by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, may I ask whether the Opposition think that we have done too much

or too little? If they believe that we have done too much, pensioners will know where they stand in regard to the Opposition. If the Opposition think that we have done too little, how do they square this with their desire for swingeing cuts in public expenditure? Our record on pensions and other benefits is very much better than that of preceding Conservative Governments, and the Opposition know it.

Mrs. Castle: Is not my right hon. Friend gambling on reductions in the rate of inflation in the next seven months of next year compared with the first five months? Does not the difficulty and danger of doing this show how much wiser it would have been for the Government to revert to the original method of uprating—the historical method which, in this uprating, would have given an increase of 16·7 per cent.?
Will my right hon. Friend please answer the question: what will the Government do if the rate of inflation is not halved and if there is a short-fall on his statutory obligations?

Mr. Ennals: I have confidence in the figures I have given and believe that it will not be necessary to make any such adjustment. Therefore, I do not believe that this is a gamble. There have been a number of forecasts of the likely annual inflation rate in November. Several of them have been below the figure which I gave. The general forecast is that the figure which I have given, with all the expectations we have of strengthening the economy, is likely to be the right one.
I ask the House to recognise what one newspaper refers to today as a spectacular turn-round in the nation's financial health in the past six months. The pound is stable, there is a new confidence in industry and commerce, unemployment is down, the balance of payments is steadily improving, reserves are at a record height, and interest rates are down. In this situation I believe that I am entitled to be optimistic about future price movements.

Mr. McCrindle: I, too, welcome the increase in cash benefits, but if the Government are wrong in estimating the rate of inflation year-on-year as no more than 14·5 per cent., what the right hon. Gentleman has announced this afternoon is a


reduction in the standard of living of pensioners and other beneficiaries. Has any advance been made on the age-old problem of announcing an increase in May and not being able to pay it before November?

Mr. Ennals: It would be easier for me to answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question if the Opposition would say whether they are suggesting that I should have given a higher figure and therefore caused higher public expenditure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered the question. I have said that I have confidence, and I am required by statute to satisfy myself, that the figure I have prophesied is at least adequate to cover prices. If unforeseen circumstances arise, it will be for the Government to decide whether any further measures need to be taken. Nobody can ever foresee these things, least of all my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who was my predecessor in this office. She knows, as does the rest of the House, that this Government have never let down the pensioners, the sick, the disabled or the unemployed.

Mr. Prentice: My right hon. Friend announced increases in unemployment benefits and sickness benefits which were lower than those for longer-term benefits. Will he express those figures in percentage terms? Will he say whether the Government's objective is to see that those short-term benefits do not increase more than the Government's prices and incomes objective—namely, as I understand it, a maximum rise of 10 per cent.? Are the Government anticipating a growth or a reduction in the number of people who after November will be better off on benefits than if they are at work?

Mr. Ennals: I have no reason to believe that there will be any such increase. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently given substantial tax reliefs to those in work and, on top of that, they will receive pay increases in the coming year. Furthermore, there will be increases in family income supplement for low earners.
If my right hon. Friend is concerned about whether my announcement is likely to increase the very small number of

people who could be better off receiving benefits than if they were in work, it is most unlikely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The part of the question which I have not yet answered is that 14 per cent. is the figure for short-term benefits and 14·4 per cent. is the figure for long-term benefits. There is a small gap between the two, which is a slight reversal of the situation announced a year ago.

Mr. Boscawen: Since the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was able to increase the purchasing power of the pensioner in July 1974 by some 30 per cent. is it not the case that since the right hon. Gentleman took office the increase in real terms has fallen to 15 per cent.? Is that not the reason why pensioners feel that they are falling behind in their standard of living?

Mr. Ennals: That is simply not true. When we look back over the years we can see that pensioners are not falling back in their standard of living. Up to November last year, at the time of the last increase, pensioners were 16 per cent. better off in real terms since we came into office compared with the situation which we inherited from our predecessors. I believe that the announcement which has been made today will be a further step in the improvement, in real terms, of the position of pensioners in this country.

Mr. John Mendelson: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about the timing of the measures that he has just announced? While he is obviously entitled to point to the positive factors developing in the economy, and to the good record of the Government in looking after pensioners and other people entitled to such social payments, he has nonetheless an obligation to the House and to pensioners to answer this question. If his calculations on inflation prove to be wrong, the effect will be seen as early as July or the beginning of August. Will he give an undertaking that if that unfortunately proves to be so, he will bring forward the increase, otherwise there will be a long gap during which pensioners and other beneficiaries will suffer if the pensions increase is delayed until November?

Mr. Ennals: I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimism. I assure him that it


is not possible, as Conservative Members who have been in Government know, to bring forward the uprating. The minimum period that is required for an uprating—we are, after all, dealing with a total of 80 million beneficiaries—is 20 weeks. In any case my hon. Friend's assessment does not stand up because the Government's assessment is that in the next two or three months we shall see a higher rate of inflation—considerably higher than that which I have prophesied for November—but that from the summer we shall see a sharp decrease.
Of course, if the time comes and we find that this assessment has been wrong, the Government—as any previous Government would have to do, or as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn would have done—will have to look at this situation. But I have confidence both in the assessment that I have made and in the fact that pensioners will have a real increase when November comes.

Mr. Costain: Was the Secretary of State's attention drawn to the fact that people who were born before 1895 get only half the burial grant of those born since? That is now a miserable figure of £15. Why have the Labour Government not increased this grant, which was introduced by a Conservative Government?

Mr. Ennals: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman asked himself why his own Government never increased the death grant. It is a very small figure. As the hon. Gentleman—I was about to say "knows" but it is possible that he does not know, but as most hon. Members would know, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can give a great deal of assistance to those in difficulty at the time of death. It is certainly not the intention of this Government, any more than it was the intention of the previous Government, to increase the death grant. We believe it much more important to ensure that a proper increase for pensioners is paid across the board, and this the Government are doing.

Mr. Urwin: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's announcement today and understanding the real benefits which will accrue to retirement pensioners generally, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give an indication of how soon he

considers that it will be possible to move retirement pensions closer to average wages? When will it be possible to have pensions which are 50 per cent. of average wages in industry and which are index protected thereafter? Despite the carping criticism from Conservative Members about the 15½per cent. increase, does my right hon. Friend accept that in the present phase 3 negotiations on incomes policy there are many trade unionists who would be happy to settle within a ceiling of 15½ per cent.?

Mr. Ennals: I believe that on the whole trade unionists will welcome this decision because they not only believe in the general strength of the economy but have shown a deep concern for the welfare of pensioners. I think they will recognise this Government to be as concerned about pensioners. With regard to relating pensions to average earnings, we are already in a situation where the single pensioner is getting about one-third of average net earnings and a couple is getting about half of average net earnings. The only other point I would add is that in 1978 we shall move to the new pensions scheme, which is of tremendous importance for all of us who will be retiring after 1978. That scheme guarantees a very much higher level of benefit than now.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call the three hon. Members on either side who have been standing up.

Mr. George Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend give a figure for the surplus that there is likely to be in the National Insurance Fund at the end of the present fiscal year? Does he agree that the increases in short-term benefits that he has announced make it all the more necessary, urgently but very calmly, to consider the question of the relationship between tax and short-term social security benefits?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the decision that I have announced today. With regard to the National Insurance Fund, in December 1976 the Government Actuary estimated that the fund would show an operational surplus of £880 million in 1977–78. The effect of the uprating alone will be to reduce the expected surplus to


about£680 million, but a further report from the Government Actuary will be available when the uprating order has been laid.
As has been said on previous occasions, tax and short-term benefits is a matter which is under review. There are some very serious administrative problems, which both Governments have recognised, but the matter is being considered at present.

Mr. Newton: Can the Secretary of State confirm that for the second year running this percentage increase is substantially larger than the percentage increase in the tax allowances for retired people? Therefore, a large number of pensioners will lose a lot of this increase in extra tax. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a figure to compare with the £100 million which was clawed back from retired people and widows last year?

Mr. Ennals: No, I cannot give a figure. The hon. Gentleman might ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He seems to have failed to recognise the considerable number of pensioners and other people with very small incomes who will be taken out of the tax bracket. The measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget are of benefit not only to pensioners but also to those on low incomes.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend understand that all these thousands, indeed millions of people who are taken out of the tax bracket every year, will be clawed back into it the following year? It is the same people coming in and out all the time. Does he not accept that this is a poor response to the call made by the TUC last October for £35 a week for a married couple? In view of the massive price increases emanating from the Common Market and the two transitions which will have to take place this year and with the price of tea now at 32p a quarter and coffee at £1·70 a jar, percentages may sound OK but the £2·20 increase will not go far set against the massive price increases that are taking place. My right hon. Friend ought to be considering taking charge of this administrative muddle and bringing the increase forward to July.

Mr. Ennals: I believe that pensioner couples—I agree that they look at cash more than at percentages—

Mr. Skinner: Yes, they do.

Mr. Ennals: —will see the £3·50 increase, bringing them to a total of £28, as the largest cash increase there has ever been. I believe that they will recognise this as a very fair measure undertaken by the Government at a time of economic difficulties. All of us, of course, out of the warmth of our hearts, would like to add an extra £1, but I have to tell my hon. Friend that each extra £1 which we add on the pension adds £500 million to total public expenditure. If I were to accept the sort of package which my hon. Friend has put forward, it would multiply by two or three times the total cost to public expenditure of what I have announced.

Mr. Skinner: I should pay my share.

Mr. Ennals: Perhaps my hon. Friend would pay his share, but I very much doubt whether across the country people would want to pay for that in increased taxes instead of having the reduced taxes which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced.

Mr. Burden: If pensioners are so much better off under this Labour Government, how does the Secretary of State explain the fact that so many of them have recently been threatened with having their electricity cut off because they were unable to pay for it, and the Government had to intervene with the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to make special arrangements so that that should not happen?

Mr. Urwin: The Tories cut the electricity off for them in the three-day working week.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman will know that a new code of conduct has been published which was worked out between the Government and the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to prevent precisely the circumstances which he is now laughing about. Moreover, because we have fully recognised the problems which elderly people have in regard to heating, we have not only substantially increased the heating allowance available to those who need additional heat but we have also ensured that the number able to obtain it has substantially


increased. In fact, it is just over 1 million people. That is one way by which this Government can help those who are in special need.

Mrs. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we recognise that the Government have taken at least some measures to try to prevent people's electricity from being cut off—which is more than the Opposition would do—and will he accept also that we recognise that pensioners are better off as a result of the Government's measures, even though we may still not be satisfied? However, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the question of uprating child benefit in November, since it cannot be said that people with families are better off and some of us are seriously concerned about this? Will he uprate child benefit in November and accept the principle of an annual uprating thereafter?

Mr. Ennals: I thank my hon. Friend for what she said in her first two questions. It is true that the Conservative Government took no action whatever to deal with the problems of the elderly, the sick and the disabled who might have their electricity cut off. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members who say that that is rubbish can write to me and explain what their Government did.
Of course, it is true, as my hon. Friend said, that pensioners are better off under this Government than ever before. However, although I should like to say that it would be possible to increase child benefit in November, I have to tell my hon. Friend that it would not be possible.

DETAILS OF NEW RATES OF BENEFIT


the following are the new rates:


MAIN INCREASED CONTRIBUTORY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY BENEFIT RATES



Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate


£
£


Standard rate of invalidity, widow's and Category A retirement* pensions; Category B retirement pension at the higher rate* and widowed mother's allowance
15·30
17·50


Increase of invalidity pension and Category A retirement pension for wife or other adult dependant; Category B retirement pension at the lower rate*
9·20
10·50


Earnings limit for retirement pensioners and wives of retirement and invalidity pensioners
35·00
40·00


Standard rate of unemployment and sickness benefits:




Higher rate
12·90
14·70


Increase for wife or other adult dependant
8·00
9·10


Lower rate
9·20
10·50


Widow's allowance (first 26 weeks of widowhood)
21·40
24·50


Maternity allowance
12·90
14·70

We have to decide what the level of child benefit will be in April next year, when we come to the second phase of the transfer into the full child benefit scheme. I am under an obligation to review the effect on child benefit of any changes in the value of money. I cannot give my hon. Friend the guarantee for which she asks, but I assure her that my colleagues and I in the Government are anxious to take any measures we can to show our absolute commitment not only to the principle but to the practice of the child benefit scheme.

Mr. Adley: Cannot the Secretary of State understand that his smug satisfaction with what he calls the largest cash increases ever is nothing less than an indictment of the Government's whole economic policy, because of the fall of the value of money under this Administration? Does he not realise that it is clear to all of us here listening to him that what he appears to be promising pensioners is jam tomorrow on bread which they cannot afford today?

Mr. Ennals: I am fulfilling—indeed, more than fulfilling—an absolute obligation to ensure that pensioners are protected from rises in the cost of living, and I am doing it by November. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not sought to answer the question which I put earlier about whether he or his right hon. and hon. Friends are suggesting that I have done too little or have done too much. He made no attempt to answer that, and I do not think that he would qualify for a place on his Front Bench.

Following is the information:

Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate








£
£


Invalidity allowance payable with invalidity pension, when incapacity began before age:




35
…
…
…
…
…
3·20
3·70


45
…
…
…
…
…
2·00
23·30


60 for men or 55 for women
…
…
…
…
…
1·00
1·15


Attendance allowance:




Higher rate
…
…
…
…
…
12·20
14·00


Lower rate
…
…
…
…
…
8·15
9·30


Retirement pension for persons over pensionable age on 5th July 1948 and for persons over 80†:




Higher rate
…
…
…
…
…
9·20
10·50


Lower rate
…
…
…
…
…
5·60
6·30


Non-contributory invalidity pension
…
…
…
…
…
9·20
10·50


Invalid care allowance
…
…
…
…
…
9·20
10·50


Increase of non-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance for wife or other adult dependant
…
…
…
…
…
5·60
6·30


Mobility allowance
…
…
…
…
…
5·00
7·00


Guardian's allowance
…
…
…
…
…
6·45
7·40


Child's special allowance; increases for children of widows, invalidity, non-contributory invalidity and retirement pensioners, and invalid care allowance beneficiaries:




First child
…
…
…
…
…
6·45
7·40


Any other
…
…
…
…
…
5·95
6·90


Increases for children of all other beneficiaries:
…
…
…
…
…




First child
…
…
…
…
…
3·05
3·50


Any other
…
…
…
…
…
2·55
3·00


* An age addition of 25p is payable to retirement pensioners who are aged 80 or over.


† Excluding the 25p age addition.

MAIN INCREASED INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFIT RATES






Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate






£
£


Injury Benefit*†
…
…
…
15·65
17·45


Disablement benefit (100 per cent. assessment)*
…
…
…
25·00
28·60


Unemployability supplement‡:
…
…
…
15·30
17·50


Special hardship allowance (maximum)
…
…
…
10·00
11·44


Constant attendance allowance (normal maximum)
…
…
…
10·00
11·40


Exceptionally severe disablement allowance
…
…
…
10·00
11·40


Industrial death benefit:




Widow's pension during first 26 weeks of widowhood
…
…
…
21·40
24·50


Widow's pension now payable at £15·85 rate
…
…
…
15·85
18·05


Widow's pension now payable at £4·59 rate
…
…
…
4·59
5·25


* The rates for beneficiaries not over the age of 18 will also be increased.


† Increases for adult dependants and children will be the same as those payable with unemployment and sickness benefits.


‡ Invalidity allowances and increases for adult dependants and children will be the same as those payable with invalidity pensions.

MAIN INCREASED WAR PENSION RATES


All ranks receive the same increases, officers' rates being expressed in pounds per annum.


PART I: DISABLEMENT BENEFITS






Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed weekly Rate






£
£


Disablement pension for private at 100 per cent. rate
…
…
…
25·00
28·60


Unemployability allowances*:




Personal allowance
…
…
…
16·30
18·60


Increase for wife or other adult dependant
…
…
…
9·20
10·50


Comforts allowance:




Higher rate
…
…
…
4·30
4·90


Lower rate
…
…
…
2·15
2·45


Allowance for lower standard of occupation (maximum)
…
…
…
10·00
11·44


Constant attendance allowance:
…
…
…




Special maximum
…
…
…
20·00
22·80


Special intermediate
…
…
…
15·00
17·10

Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate








£
£


Normal maximum
…
…
…
…
…
10·00
11·40


Half and quarter day
…
…
…
…
…
5·00
5·70


Age allowance with assessments of:




40 and 50 per cent.
…
…
…
…
…
1·80
2·00


Over 50 and not exceeding 70 per cent.
…
…
…
…
…
2·75
3·10


Over 70 and not exceeding 90 per cent.
…
…
…
…
…
3·90
4·40


Over 90 per cent.
…
…
…
…
…
5·50
6·20


Exceptionally severe disablement allowance
…
…
…
…
…
10·00
11·40


Severe disablement occupational allowance
…
…
…
…
…
5·00
5·70

Existing annual Rate
Proposed Annual Rate












£
£


Clothing allowance:




Higher rate
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
36·00
40·00


Lower rate
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
23·00
25·00


* Invalidity allowances and increases for children will be the same as those payable with invalidity pensions.

PART II: DEATH BENEFITS









Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate









£
£


Widow's pension—private's widow:


Standard rate
…
…
…
…
…
…
19·80
22·70


Childless widow under 40
…
…
…
…
…
…
4·59
5·25


Rent allowance
…
…
…
…
…
…
7·50
8·60


Age allowance for elderly widows:


Between age 65 and 70
…
…
…
…
…
…
1·95
2·20


Over age 70
…
…
…
…
…
…
3·90
4·40


Widower's pension
…
…
…
…
…
…
19·80
22·70


Adult orphans
…
…
…
…
…
…
15·30
17·50

MAIN INCREASED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT RATES




Existing Ordinary Rate
Existing Long-Term Rate*
Proposed Ordinary Weekly Rate
Proposed Long-Term Weekly Rate*




£
£
£
£


Ordinary scale:






Husband and wife
…
20·65
24·85
23·55
28·35


Person living alone
…
12·70
15·70
14·50
17·90


Any other person aged:






Not less than 18
…
10·15
12·60
11·60
14·35


Less than 18 but not less than 16
…
7·80
—
8·90
—


Less than 16 but not less than 13
…
6·50
—
7·40
—


Less than 13 but not less than 11
…
5·35
—
6·10
—


Less than 11 but not less than 5
…
4·35
—
4·95
—


Less than 5
…
3·60
—
4·10
—


Blind scale:






Husband and wife:






If one of them is blind
…
21·90
26·10
24·80
29·60


If both of them are blind
…
22·70
26·90
25·60
30·40


Any other blind person aged:






Not less than 18
…
13·95
16·95
15·75
19·15


Less than 18 but not less than 16
…
8·70
—
9·80
—


Less than 16 but not less than 13
…
6·50
—
7·40
—


Less than 13 but not less than 11
…
5·35
—
6·10
—


Less than 11 but not less than 5
…
4·35
—
4·95
—


Less than 5
…
3·60
—
4·10
—

Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate









£
£


Non-householder rent allowance
…
…
…
…
…
…
1·20
1·45


Attendance requirements:




Higher rate
…
…
…
…
…
…
12·20
14·00

Existing Weekly Rate
Proposed Weekly Rate







£
£


Lower rate
…
…
…
…
8·15
9·30


Discretionary additions to supplementary benefit:




Heating additions
…
…
…
…
0·70
0·80


1·40
1·60


2·10
2·40


Central Heating additions
…
…
…
…
0·35
0·40


0·70
0·80


1·40
1·60


Dietary additions
…
…
…
…
0·75
0·90


1·75
2·1


* Where the claimant or a dependant is aged 80 or over a further 25p is added to these long-term rates.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (Mr. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I have a privilege ruling to give to the House. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) raised a complaint of privilege in regard to a news item published on the Press Association tape referring to union sponsorship. It is this complaint, and this alone, which I regard as being one for my decision.
I have considered this matter carefully, and I am satisfied that it is a proper case for me to allow a motion relating to it to have precedence over the Orders of the Day.
It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington raised certain other issues of a peripheral nature. I could not in any event allow precedence to these other matters since they were not raised at the earliest opportunity.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
perhaps I may add that the Committee of Privileges has been considering the whole question of privilege and is preparing a report on the matter for the House which would alter—and, as I believe, would greatly improve—the procedures which we should follow for dealing with these matters. In my view, the sooner we can bring those changes into operation the better it will be for the House as a whole and the less it will be

necessary for the time of the House to be taken on these matters and for me to move such a motion as I have now moved.
I very much hope that we shall bring that report to the House speedily, that we shall get it passed speedily, and that we shall be able to adopt an improved method for dealing with the whole question of privileges.

Mr. Whitelaw: This must come as a remarkable occasion, since I agree with every word just said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. In that circumstance, I hope that the House will proceed on the basis which he has proposed. I am, with the right hon. Gentleman, a member of the Committee of Privileges, and I entirely agree with what he said on the other matter.

Mr. Skinner: As I reminded the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this is a very narrow question. Invariably, when these matters arise they deal with trade union sponsorships. However, we all know that there are many right hon. and hon. Members, mainly on the Opposition Benches, and a few on these—I say a few, but there may be a few more—who get involved in sponsorships, directorships of one kind and another, consultancies and so on with firms of all descriptions.
In fact, there is a lot of shady business which is contracted to Members of Parliament, as one can see if one turns to the Register of Members' Interests and tries to examine more fully precisely what these Members of Parliament are supposed to do for the sums of money which they are getting from the firms in question. I had to deal with this matter in the Standing Committee on a Bill recently but, despite all my researches, I was not then able to uncover all the aspects relating to certain matters.
However, of one thing I am certain. Whereas, when a trade union—for instance, the one referred to yesterday—takes a decision in an open democratic fashion and decides on a resolution, it is there for all the world to see, I have no doubt that at the same time there are bound to be instances of firms which may well be uncertain and dissatisfied with the way in which Members of Parliament, especially on the Opposition Benches, are carrying out the sponsorships for which they are paid.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, trade unions by and large pay substantial amounts of money not to the Members concerned but mainly to the constituency parties. But I assume that in nearly all circumstances directorship fees go into the pockets of the Members concerned.
There are bound to be occasions when firms are so dissatisfied with the performance of their Members of Parliament, as seemingly is the case with trade unions on occasions, that they secretly, not openly, decide to stop the sponsorship or the money. In those circumstances, Members cannot raise the issue with you, Mr. Speaker. For example, the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who raised the issue, may not know that Holiday Inns has decided that the Member concerned is not fulfilling the object for which he is paid—namely, to assist Holiday Inns as a Member of Parliament.
Again, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is paid as a consultant to Trust Houses Forte. That company is engaged in trying to prevent its staff from becoming trade unionists. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman has recently been engaged in a phoney campaign to encourage Tory members engaged in various industries and firms to join trade unions. Let us suppose that Trust Houses Forte directors—Lord Thorneycroft and a few others, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—got together and said "Let us stop this man's money because he is not pulling his weight. He is acting against the best interests of Trust Houses Forte." The money could be stopped. That might sound somewhat hilarious.
We know for a fact that it has not happened, but in certain circumstances a firm

could decide that it has an idle Tory Member of Parliament, or perhaps one of those Labour Members of Parliament who are engaged in these matters, or even one of the Liberal Members of Parliament who are engaged in a multitude of matters of this kind, and therefore stops the payment of the fee. The net result would be that, as I explained, no Member of Parliament would be in a position to raise the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was absolutely right when he said that this was a very wide question. Yesterday I asked you, Mr. Speaker, to look at this matter in a broader context. I know that you have difficulties because of various Committee decisions and past precedents. However, I think that it is high time that the House, and particularly people outside, understood that many Members are fed up to the back teeth with having to listen to taunts being made against trade union sponsored Members of Parliament whilst the rest of that crowd opposite seem to go unchallenged.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend made his rather abstract general remarks he was really saying—[Interruption.] I did not think that he was being very specific. He has not been all that specific since he got that job. We all do a bit of generalising at times, but when one gets on the Treasury Front Bench one has to do a lot of it. I think that you do as well, Mr. Speaker.
If my right hon. Friend deals with the matter in the manner that I have described, we shall perhaps change this business which has occurred so often in the past. We shall not in future tolerate one section of Members of Parliament who are carrying out sponsorship duties—[Interruption.] Well, some are. I have been disagreeing with the National Union of Mineworkers currently over pay policy since we have had a Labour Government. It seems that only in Opposition do I support its view. But we are sponsored Members of Parliament acting in the interests not only of our constituents but of our trade unions on occasions. It is time that those who represent firms and have consultancies of one kind and another were treated in like manner so that we can dispose of this matter once and for all and stop the business of Members coming here and making remarks of the kind which were made on this occasion.

Mr. Prentice: I support the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but with rather more enthusiasm for it than he displayed in his remarks.
This is a unique and much more serious situation than we might have assumed from the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The resolution passed at the NUPE conference yesterday, if allowed to prevail and become a precedent, would be a dangerous intervention in the normal democratic traditions of this country.
I speak as someone who was a sponsored trade union Member of Parliament for many years. I resigned from the panel of the Transport and General Workers' Union last year because I no longer believed that the system was good or that it was relevant to modern needs.
During the years when I was a sponsored trade union Member of Parliament, I frequently disagreed, as did other members of the TGWU panel, with the union's current policy. I recall strongly disagreeing with its policy over nuclear disarmament, incomes policy, the Common Market and other issues. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that he frequently disagreed with the NUM's policy.
If a sponsored Member of Parliament has a difference of view with the union sponsoring him—I agree that this principle should apply to those who work for private companies—his duty as a Member of Parliament is to speak out. Any union or firm which tries to put pressure on a sponsored Member not to speak out is conducting itself in a very dangerous way.
The motion passed yesterday purported to instruct six Members of this House to act in a way which was not in accordance with their convictions or to lose trade union sponsorship. I have the greatest respect for those six Members. I welcome the fact that they have publicly made clear that they will accept no such instruction. It is right that the issue should go to the Committee of Privileges. We should take this matter seriously. Trade unions and other vested interests in this country should be made to recognise that Members of Parliament are not to be bought or sold.

Mr. Lee: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in opposing the motion.
There was an occasion in the 1966–70 Parliament when a former Member for Luton, Mr. Will Howie, found himself in conflict with his trade union because he took a different point of view from the union. Mr. Will Howie, being an honourable man, rather than go on receiving money from a trade union with which he was at variance, had the constitutional propriety to resign his sponsorship. There could be no complaint on either side when that happened. The union was not paying out money to a Member of Parliament to carry out duties contrary to its policy and the Member concerned preserved his freedom of action.
However, it cannot be regarded as tolerable for a Member of Parliament to accept financial sponsorship from a union, knowing the union's policy, and then to behave contrary to it. One cannot accept remuneration to carry out one brief and then take up the opposite side of the court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was absolutely right. I shall certainly challenge this matter to a Division if he does not.

Mr. Foot: I hope that I shall say nothing which will lose me the support of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), having gained it so uniquely by what I said earlier. I shall do my best to avoid losing his support and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that the best course to secure that support is for me to comment as briefly as possible on what has been said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) illustrated the difficulty of the House having a debate in these circumstances before it has looked at the precedents and the facts, which the Committee of Privileges would do. That is the reason why I moved this motion.
I repeat that many of us believe—I am sure that I have the support of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, and this accords with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—that the method by which the House has dealt with privilege has not been the best in the


interests not only of the House but of retaining the privileges which are genuinely justified. Therefore, we believe that this cumbrous procedure should be overhauled and that some different method of dealing with most cases should be fashioned.
That suggestion has been considered by the Committee of Privileges. It makes recommendations to the House, and the House considers whether those fresh recommendations should be put into operation. If that were to happen, it would prevent the House embarking on discussions of privilege in circumstances where we do not have the facts and it would also ensure that less time of the House was wasted on these matters. It would also mean that hon. Members would be making clear to the public that they are not thin-skinned in their readiness to accept criticism and that when criticisms are made, and the matters raised, those criticisms should not always be referred to the Committee of Privileges for adjudication—even if they involve a breach of privilege.
For all those reasons I hope that the House will agree that we should refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges. I understand that some of my hon. Friends have a different point of view, and they can put that view in the Division Lobby

Division No. 148]
AYES
[4.22 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Adley, Robert
Cope, John
George, Bruce


Aitken, Jonathan
Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John


Archer, Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Arnold, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard
Graham, Ted


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bates, Alt
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamish


Belth, A. J.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grieve, Percy


Bell, Ronald
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Biffen, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Doig, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bradley, Tom
Durant, Tony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
English, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Buck, Antony
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Budgen, Nick
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Burden, P. A.
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Cant, R. B.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Janner, Greville


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
John, Brynmor


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grlnstead)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Forrester, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cockcroft, John
Fox, Marcus
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Freud, Clement
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Coleman, Donald
Fry, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Conlan, Bernard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kimball, Marcus

if they wish. However, I must point out to those hon. Members who are critical in these matters—as I have been on many occasions—that we wish to get the whole matter overhauled and the recommendations of the new Committee of Privileges into operation as speedily as we can. Certainly the Government will bring that recommendation before the House as soon as possible, and I hope that this will be the last occasion upon which a Leader of the House must move such a motion in these circumstances.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ridley (seated and covered): On a point of order. To assist the House, Mr. Speaker, will you indicate who should be allowed to vote in this Division and the necessity of declaring interests before voting? Would it be the case that all trade union sponsored hon. Members should be ineligible to vote?

Mr. Speaker: All hon. Members are free to vote and they take responsibility for their own interests. I cannot stop any hon. Member from voting.

Mr. Prescott: They did not receive the money personally.

The House having divided: Aves 203. Noes 45.

Kitson, Sir Timothy
Newton, Tony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knight, Mrs Jill
Normanton, Tom
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Knox, David
Nolt, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David


Lawson, Nigel
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, John (Harrow West)
Tebbit, Norman


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Park, George
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lloyd, Ian
Parker, John
Tinn, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parkinson, Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


McCartney, Hugh
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


McCrindle, Robert
Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Macfarlane, Neil
Renlon, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wakeham, John


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rhodes James, R.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wall, Patrick


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Warren, Kenneth


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roper, John
Weatherill, Bernard


McNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wells, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marten, Nell
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Tim
Whitlock, William


Mayhew, Patrick
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mills, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shersby, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Montgomery, Fergus
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Moonman, Eric
Sims, Roger
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hon George


Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Spence, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Nelson, Anthony
Stalnton, Keith
Mr. A. W. Stallard.


Neubert, Michael







NOES



Allaun, Frank
Hatton, Frank
Prescott, John


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Buchan, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lee, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Clemitson, Ivor
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Edge, GeoH
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Madden, Max
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. Russell Kerr and


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ovenden, John
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Grocott, Bruce

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

SUB JUDICE RULE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Sir David Renton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I wish to refer to your ruling yesterday on the sub judice rule. In your ruling, which I welcomed, you said:
This is a serious criminal charge, and if has been the invariable practice of my predecessors and myself, as long as any such criminal charge is pending, not to permit any

discussion in the House that might conceivably prejudice it."—[Official Report, 24th May 1977; Vol. 932, c. 1189.]
I stress the words "might conceivably". They have a wide application and they remind us that we cannot anticipate the way in which a criminal trial might proceed.
I suggest that we ought not to discuss matters which, if discussed, "might conceivably" prevent its being a fair trial. One way of discussing matters that could have that result would be for us to attack the character or credibility of witnesses or probable witnesses, whether called by the prosecution or the defence.
I must be careful not to infringe the sub judice rule myself by discussing how the trial in question might proceed, but I


believe that I am in order in pointing out that the essence of a charge of forgery is that it alleges intent to defraud. On that issue the prosecution would be at liberty to call the editor, a sub-editor, or any other member of the staff of the newspaper concerned in order to try to establish intent to defraud. Equally, the defence would be entitled to call any of them to rebut any such allegation, especially if the prosecution had not already done so.
If, meanwhile, we in the House attacked any such witness, he would go into court with his reputation already impugned in the minds of the jury, who would have read about the attack, seen it on television, or heard about it on the radio. The witness's evidence would then carry less weight and a miscarriage of justice could occur as a result.
There is the further consideration that, although the civil action is not yet sub judice, its outcome could be influenced by the result of the criminal proceedings and by the way in which witnesses in those proceedings emerge from them. I mention this merely as a further reason for caution in the matter and not as the main foundation of my case.
For the reasons that I have given, perhaps all too briefly—and I am sure that those hon. Members who are awaiting the exciting debate on the Patents Bill will excuse me for entering upon the matter at all—and because further discussion in the House of this matter, which is already sub judice, "might conceivably" prejudice a fair trial of the criminal charge I submit that no further discussion of the criminal case or of the personalities at the centre of it should be allowed in the House until the case is over.

Mr. Lee: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a considered reply to give. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to continue with his point of order?

Mr. Lee: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), with characteristic courtesy and lack of polemic, has raised some important matters. I think that the Chair should consider—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that the hon. Gentleman may do is to put his point of order to me. He must not argue his case now.

Mr. Lee: I am coming to the point to order by making a point that I hope will be helpful to the Chair. If the line that can be inferred from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said were followed, great difficulties could arise in the discussion of many matters over a very long period.
May I quote a precedent to the contrary? You will recollect the Profumo affair in 1963, Mr. Speaker, and also recollect that there was an extensive debate of the security aspects of that affair even though the trials of Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler were pending before the Central Criminal Court and other criminal matters and proceedings took place, including the inquiry under the present Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning.
That seems to suggest that the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member, although seemingly reasonable, is at variance with the practice of the House, and I submit that it would be most undesirable if the House were constrained in its discussions for what must inevitably be a long and indefinite period. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the civil proceedings have not yet advanced very far and further proceedings may be forthcoming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has tabled a Question to the Attorney-General asking whether proceedings for criminal libel are to be taken against one of the persons concerned in this matter. If, Mr. Speaker, you were to rule in the restrictive way suggested, it is logical that the Attorney-General would be unable to answer that Question. I am sure that the House must agree that it is desirable that he should be questioned about that matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member and to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who did me the courtesy of giving me notice of the point of order. Indeed, he came to see me and submitted his point of view in writing. This has been a great help to me and I am deeply grateful to him.
The House has long taken the view that legal proceedings should not be prejudiced by observations made in debate. It confirmed this view on 20th June 1963 by agreeing to a report on the matter which had been recently issued from the Procedure Committee.
In paragraph 11 of that report the Committee made clear that in its opinion the word "prejudice" covered the possible effect on the members of the court, the jury, the witnesses and the parties to any action. In doing so, however, the Committee defined such possible effects as those by which:
The minds of magistrates, assessors, members of a jury and of witnesses might be influenced by reading in the newspapers comment made in the House prejudicial to the accused in a criminal case".
This falls far short of ruling out of order all unfavourable comment on the behaviour of someone other than the accused who may hypothetically at some future stage become involved in a criminal case under adjudication.
While, therefore, I see no reason to modify in any way the considered ruling that I gave yesterday—and, indeed, I am grateful to the House for observing it so scrupulously once I had given it—I do not think that it would have been right for me to try to inhibit the House from discussing such aspects of this important matter, which has aroused great interest outside, as do not directly and recognisably relate to the proceedings which are pending. I need hardly add, however, that any comment on the behaviour of the editor, or, indeed, that of any other person in specific relation to the alleged forgery itself would be entirely out of order under the sub judice rule.

STANDING ORDER No. 9 (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) gave me notice at 1.40 p.m. that he wished to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. I fear that he is not able to do that, because Standing Orders make it perfectly clear that notice must be given before 12 o'clock if the information is available at that time. In this case it appeared in the morning papers.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is an hon. Member allowed to make an application in spite of the application not being notified to you before 12 o'clock? Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that, although an application may be less favourably received if you have not had notice of it before 12 o'clock, if you take the view on the substance of the application that you wish to allow it, you may still grant it?

Mr. Speaker: The Standing Orders are more rigid and clear than the hon. Member appears to believe. They say:
A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve o'clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour".
The hon. Member acknowledges that the information was in the morning papers.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that the House is not able to judge that point. Although you and I, Mr. Speaker, know the subject of the application under Standing Order No. 9, the House is not party to the secret between us. Since the matter concerns the decision yesterday by the Police Federation in favour of the right to strike, the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not pursue the matter. I was going to give the subject myself if the hon. Member had not done so. I intended to do that at an earlier stage.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17th JUNE

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Ralph Howell
Mr. John Farr
Mr. George Rodgers.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities in Scotland to carry out within their area works on behalf of other local authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the volume of legislation in force; and for connected purposes.
I have always had a great deal of sympathy with that prayer uttered in the face of all the tempting temptations of the flesh: "God, make me good—but not yet." I am therefore not ashamed to stand here and ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to stop others from introducing Bills.
The proposition underlying the Bill is one that has general assent throughout the country if not in the House. It is that we have too much legislation, too many laws and too many regulations
I have referred outside the House to the legislative incontinence of this Parliament. Upon reflection, I realise that that was not an expression that I should have used. Incontinence implies an unwilling or unintended dribble. This Parliament is no unintentional dribbler of legislation. It pours out the stuff—presumably by intent—year after year. To be fair to the Lord President, he seems to be a reformed character in that respect. But I do not believe that he is permanently reformed. If circumstances changed, he might return to his bad old ways.
Since the end of the last war 2,000 Public General Acts have been passed in this House. That contrasts remarkably with the Ten Commandments which at one time were held to suffice.
We have had a number of Acts to control prices, for example. Now it appears that we are all agreed about those. We all agree that those Acts have not been unduly effective. Perhaps before long those Acts will fade into the mists of the past as unwanted legislation. Perhaps we could all find Acts for which we voted—let alone those that we opposed—that might have been better lost in the litter of lost legislation.
Yes, there have been 2,000 Public General Acts. It is appropriate to quote the wise words of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation which was

chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The report was published as Command Paper No. 6053. Paragraph 1.10 of that report states:
We must add that little can be done to improve the quality of legislation unless those concerned in the process are willing to modify some of their most cherished habits. We have particularly in mind the tendency of all Governments to rush to much weighty legislation through Parliament in too short a time with or without the connivance of Parliament, and the inclination of Members of Parliament to press for too much detail in Bills. Parliamentarians cannot have it both ways. If they really want legislation to be simple and clear they must accept Bills shorn of unnecessary detail and elaboration.
My Bill would certainly concentrate the minds of parliamentary draftsmen and us parliamentarians, too.
Of course, since that report was published we have had the extraordinary affair of the Acts of Parliament (Correction of Mistakes) Bill. That mistake was corrected at an early stage when the Lord President or someone else consigned it to the dustbin before it got any further. However, as the House knows, it was a Bill designed to allow Ministers to correct mistakes in rotten legislation that had been rushed through the House. I am not sure whether one should laugh or cry at either its appearance or its demise.
Acts of Parliament spawn more and more secondary legislation. Almost every general Act in this respect is like an oilfield blow-out, gushing Statutory Instruments, with no blow-out valve anywhere in the system. Statutory Instruments come gushing out at over 2,000 a year. Indeed, par for the course now seems to have settled at about 2,250. Some of them are never discussed at all.
Some enjoy the 90-minute farce upstairs—a sort of parliamentary "Just a 90-minute" parlour game. It can be played only for fun, as sometimes the vote is for the motion under discussion and sometimes it is against the motion under discussion—but it makes no difference whatsoever: the Statutory Instrument still comes into force. Therefore, it does not seem a very effective way of regulating our business.
I need hardly mention in this House the problem of dealing with European legislation—although in passing I remind the Lord President that my Bill should get his support, because it would


give him the perfect excuse not to present the Bill on direct elections, not to mention, of course, the devolution Bill.
As one looks at legislation that has been enacted and at the Statutory Instruments, which are counted not by the page but by the foot of bookshelf space that they occupy, one can have no wonder that the law is in disrepute. Thousands of people break the law without even knowing it. The cascade—perhaps "shower" is a better word—of legislation overwhelms the citizen as regulation follows regulation upon regulation with bewildering and often incomprehensible effect upon his life.
Unlike the Lord President, I do not believe that the judiciary brings the law into disrepute. I think that it would be truer to say that bad laws and excessive laws passed by this House bring the law into disrepute.
We are, I think, the worst-paid legislature in the developed free world. As it happens, we also have the worst economic performance in the developed free world. I am not sure whether there is a correlation there. But certainly one other record that we have is that there is no other legislature that produces so much legislation. This is the only productivity record of the whole world that Britain undoubtedly holds—the productivity of Members of this House in putting words of legislation—whether understood or not, or whether even considered properly or not—on the statute book.
Therefore, my Bill is short and simple. It would require that from the day of enactment there should be no increase in the number of words in force upon the statute book, nor any increase in the number of words of Statutory Instruments and regulations in force. To bring in a new Bill would require the repeal of an existing Act. To make a new regulation

would require the rescinding of one already in force. The Bill is based upon the assumption that we have enough legislation. There could be arguments about whether it is the right legislation, but we certainly have too much.
I have already commented upon the irony of producing a Bill to stop other people producing new Bills. Such legislative abstinence from those who have become addicted to legislating would come hard, and, of course, I would be prepared to consider in Committee some amendment to allow a trickle of new legislation, should a case be made for it—but I would want to see the statute book somewhat cleaned up first.
This House won power over the Executive not by legislating but by controlling money, by withholding taxation and by stopping kings and queens—and Prime Ministers, too—from spending. We in this House have lost control of the Executive, and we have become a bunch of parliamentary battery hens producing cracked and addled legislation night and day. It is time that we stopped legislating and started to defend the people against the Executive instead of defending the Executive against the people. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Nicholas Ridley and Mr. Ian Gow.

LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION

Mr. Norman Tebbit accordingly presented a Bill to limit the volume of legislation in force; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Orders of the Day — PATENTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.56 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I have to inform the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

4.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
After listening to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I feel a little sensitive about moving the Second Reading of the Bill. However, this is an important and timely Bill, very much desired by industry, and it deals comprehensively with the patent system.
For me and, I am sure, for many others, the subject of patents and inventions is something of a journey into the unknown, filled with mystery and even eccentricity. One recalls how an inventor is described in "Gulliver's Travels", in one instance, as having been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials, hermetically sealed and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. The patent world is not of course, exactly like that. However, one thinks of the multitude of inventions which pass through the Patent Office which have brought a great deal of benefit and, in some cases, pain, to mankind.
British inventions have had a substantial part to play in all this—the development of the magnetron, polyester fibres, the hovercraft and disc brakes, to name just a few. I know not whether the ladies' high heel was a British invention, but I think that it must have been invented by a lady who had been kissed on the forehead. However, when one looks at some of the patents, one finds that it is a very remarkable sort of product.
I have nothing but admiration for those who are engaged in these activities. The

patent system was born of the desire to introduce new manufacture into this country. It has its roots in the Statute of Monopolies of 1623, which excepted from the general abolition of private monopoly rights those which are necessary for the encouragement of innovation and investment in industry. It is well recorded by Dickens, in "A Poor Man's Tale of a Patent", that obtaining a patent in days long ago was a very chancy and expensive business.
It is interesting to reflect—at the same time, it is appalling to think about it—that at one time, each patent applied for was to be the subject of debate in this House. On 14th May 1712 a petition of John Hutchinson was presented to the House and read, setting forth,
That the petitioner having invented and brought into practice a portable movement to measure time; which, instead of the several cross motions, hollow wheels with teeth, parallel to their axes, used in former movements, hath all the axes parallel and straight; all the wheels, plates and the balance, parallel and flat; all the teeth straight in the lines of the diameters of the wheels; the axis or spindle of the balance, moved by two wheels alternately, and traversing equal distance in equal time, without pause, in such sort, that none of its moving parts can move nearer to, or farther from, each other; whereby, in the opinion of the greatest mathematicians and best judges of such movements, it is capable of moving more equally, and less liable to be disturbed by external motion; so that it may be of great use to the public for finding the longitude and in several other aspects; and praying leave to bring in a Bill to secure these inventions, and the improvements therein, to the Petitioner.
It was ordered that leave be given to bring in such a Bill. I hesitate to think what the hon. Member for Chingford would have thought if he he had been in the House at that time.
Since Dickens' days, there have been very many developments in the inevitable progress of the patents system. It was put on a firm base by an Act of 1883, which established the Patent Office, and this Act has been followed by a succession of amending Acts, each of which introduced some special features into the system. Today the patent system is based on the Patents Act 1949 and there is, I believe, general agreement that this has served the country well.
However, the Patents Act 1949 retains several concepts which are now outmoded and there is a need for substantial reform of our patent system as the 1975 White


Paper clearly established. This is required for two main reasons. First, there is the need to give effect to new ideas and to provide a system which is more attuned to the present-day requirements of industry and inventors. Secondly, there is the need to take fully into account the results of the largest upsurge in international activity that the patents world has ever experienced. The British Government have played a highly significant part in this activity, in the realisation that there is obvious benefit to our industry and our inventors in simplifying the task of obtaining patent protection for their inventions in the different countries of the world.
These aims were strongly endorsed by a committee which, under the able chairmanship of Sir Maurice Banks, carried out a complete appraisal of our patent system in 1967–70. The Bill gives effect to these aims. It is designed to serve both those who are not concerned to use one of the new international routes to protection and those who are anxious to do so. It not only provides a radical reform of our domestic law and procedure but grafts on to the new domestic system the legal framework necessary for patents obtained by one or other of the international arrangements that will, in the near future, become available for use by export conscious British industry.
I do not doubt that hon. Members will find that this is a long and highly technical Bill. I find that myself. I can do no more at this stage than lightly sketch in its main features.
Parts I and III set out the new domestic code, while Part II gives effect to our obligations under international agreements. I shall mention all these later, but for now I shall refer only to the European Patent Convention, which defines a European patent law and procedure. It will enable an applicant to obtain through the European Patent Office, and by means of a single application, a European patent having effect as a national patent in as many of the contracting States as he desires. This Convention rationalises the method of obtaining patent protection in Europe and should provide significant advantage to our industry and our inventors. It is a most important development, and it was with a view to becoming a founder member,

when, as expected, the Convention enters into force in the summer months, that, in March this year, the Government ratified the Convention with the approbation of all parties.
In formulating the new code, the Government were concerned to align it as closely as possible with the European Patent Convention. This is necessary in order to avoid any duality of standards as between British patents, on the one hand, and on the other, European patents which will be effective here, thereby avoiding confusion as to the patent situation and inhibiting commercial activity. This, we feel, is a strong reason for following European law. But there is yet another reason for doing this, because it will obviously assist practitioners to adopt substantially the same practice whether they are seeking a British patent, a European patent or some other patent under one of the other international agreements that we intend to ratify. Because of these needs the Government have responded to several requests in another place to produce closer alignment between the provisions of the Bill and the Convention and, to this end, a number of useful amendments have now been incorporated in the Bill.
In Part I of the Bill, basic patent law concepts are, indeed, closely modelled on provisions of the Convention. This is exemplified by the conditions of patentability, set out in Clauses 1 and 4, which, among other things, introduce the concept that an invention will not be patentable if it has become public knowledge in any part of the world, whereas the present law relies only on disclosure in the United Kingdom itself.
Clause 5, concerning priority date, is designed to give the same effect as the priority provisions of the Convention. It provides much more flexibility than the present law in that, like the Convention, it enables a single British application to attract the priorities of both an earlier British application and an earlier foreign filing.
Clause 22 reflects the patent term of 20 years which the Convention provided for European patents. This is four years longer than is the case now. I believe that this increase in length of the monopoly term is justified by the longer development time which has resulted from


more complex technology and the adoption of more stringent safety and other standards.
Clause 69 reduces the existing grounds of revocation of patents to those important grounds on which European patents may be revoked. These are the grounds which are of practical importance and, although it will no longer be possible for a person to seek revocation of patent for an invention on the ground of his own secret prior use of that invention, this does no harm because Clause 61 introduces the new personal right to continue to use that invention.
Clause 119 is concerned with the fundamental question of the extent of the protection which is conferred by a patent. It refers expressly to the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention so as to ensure that British patents and European patents are interpreted here in substantially the same way as European patents are to be interpreted under the terms of the Convention.
Many amendments have been made with a view to closer alignment. I believe that these accord with the views and the needs of our industry and our inventors. But it remains true that the wording of the Bill does not, in all respects, adopt the wording of the Convention. This has been criticised in another place, but I believe that the House will accept that the wording of the Bill should be exact in terms of what is required by the law of the United Kingdom, but, moreover, I believe that the Bill does faithfully reflect the meaning and intent of the Convention provisions with which we need to be aligned. Apart from this, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the rather novel device adopted in subsection (7) of Clause 124, which is specifically intended to ensure a harmonised interpretation.
Another theme of the Bill is to provide for stronger British patents. Patents of doubtful validity result in uncertainty and can unfairly deter a competitor. This could work particularly harshly in the case of a small firm, which is not in a position to evaluate the strength of others' patents and does not wish to engage in expensive litigation.
This situation cannot be allowed to persist into the future when strong European patents will be effective here, and the Bill supplies the remedy by means of Clauses 16 and 17, which strengthen the search and examination carried out by the Patent Office. The search is no longer to be restricted to the determination of the novelty or otherwise of an invention; it is extended to the discovery of documents which are of relevance in assessing whether or not the invention is an obvious follow-up to what is already public knowledge, and this matter will be fully considered during the substantive examination which is provided for under Clause 17. This is a major breakthrough in patent practice in this country and should serve the best interests of industry and inventors.
As recommended by the Banks Committee, the Bill also seeks to remove delays. At present the information contained in a patent specification is not made available to the public until the legal requirements for the grant of a patent have been met. This can take up to three-and-a-half years. It can inhibit the activities of others, working in the same area, or it can result in a wasteful duplication of effort. As is the case for the European system, the Bill therefore provides, in Clause 15, for publication at a much earlier point in time. Recognising that this might result in piracy of an invention in the period between publication and grant, the Bill also attaches rights to the early publication which, once a patent has been granted, can be exercised against a person who infringes in the interim.
The Bill also speeds up the granting of patents in the interest of dispelling uncertainty as soon as possible. It preserves the existing feature of a maximum period, within which an application must comply with requirements or be treated as refused, but Clause 17 and other clauses also provide for a general tightening up of procedure, so as to avoid unnecessary and undesirable delays. Third party opposition proceedings prior to a grant have also been abolished in view of the delays and uncertainty which they introduce. But Clause 20 compensates for this by enabling third parties to bring their observations on patentability to the notice of the Patent Office


so that they can be taken into account during the examination stage.
Another feature of the Bill concerns the enhancement of the powers of the Comptroller. As strongly recommended by the Banks Committee, and reflecting the confidence in this country of the Comptroller's court with its relatively cheap and easy procedure, Clause 69 removes existing differences in jurisdiction between the High Court and the Comptroller in revocation proceedings. Applications for revocation may in future be made to the Comptroller at any time during the life of a patent and on the same grounds as are available before the court. This removes the present unsatisfactory state of affairs whereby an applicant for revocation before the Comptroller may attack the patent only on limited grounds, and the Comptroller is obliged to refuse the application not, withstanding the fact that, if he had been able to consider the wider grounds available before the court, he would have revoked the patent.
In addition, following amendments proposed in another place, which the Government were happy to accept, the Comptroller, provided he has the agreement of the parties, has power under Clause 58 to deal with the question of patent infringement. He may also under Clause 68 assist industry by making declarations of non-infringement in appropriate cases. All these provisions, and other provisions, like Clauses 7, 11 and 34, which give a broad power to the Comptroller to determine disputes as to the rights in patents, should help to meet the frequently expressed desire to keep down the costs of settling disputes, without, of course, affecting the basic right of all citizens to take their troubles to the High Court.
In connection with litigation, I should refer to Clauses 93 and 94 of the Bill. These provide for a new Patents Court to be constituted as part of the Chancery Division of the High Court. This court will have first instance jurisdiction over actions for infringement and other matters and will also hear appeals from the Comptroller. Under the present law, appeals from the Comptroller are dealt with by the Patents Appeal Tribunal. This is technically of lower status than the High Court and its decisions, therefore, lack the same authority. The change of status provided by the Bill is justified

by the need for finality of decision and the avoidance of uncertainties in the interpretation of the law. I believe that the change is welcomed on all sides.
Before leaving this brief review of the new domestic situation, I should mention Clauses 36 to 40, which represent an important development in British law. They concern inventions made by employees, the rights of ownership of which are at present regulated by the common law. This branch of the law has frequently been criticised as being difficult to ascertain, depending, as it does, on the law as enshrined in judicial precedent.
Additionally, the present law leans too heavily in favour of the employer, particularly since it allows the employer to require his employee to sign away any rights that he may have in all inventions that he subsequently makes. Furthermore, it gives no right enabling the employee-inventor to seek a reward for his endeavours over and above his usual remuneration—although the Civil Service and a number of firms operate ex gratia schemes for the benefit of their employees.
We believe that it is desirable to do more for people who invent in the course of their work, while respecting the need for employers to be free to decide whether to take up and exploit inventions made by their employees and to avoid administrative and other difficulties, which inevitably increase overheads. I believe that the scheme embraced by the Bill, which in its essentials was worked out with the help of representatives of industry and the TUC, provides a fair and just balance between the differing interests of the employer and his employee-inventor.
Clause 36 defines the rules for determining the ownership and the purpose of the clause is to introduce clarity into the law. Where, under the terms of Clause 36, the invention belongs to the employer, Clause 37 enables the employee-inventor to seek an award only when the employer has taken out a patent which has proved to be of outstanding benefit to him.
In other words, only the employer will usually derive benefit from the patent, and we think this is right since, in cases where the invention belongs to the employer, the inventor is doing no more than the job for which he is being paid. But if the patent turns out to be a real winner, we think that it is equitable to


give the inventor some prospect of an award. That is what the Bill provides.
On the other hand, where, under the terms of Clause 36, the invention belongs to the employee, Clause 37 provides that he can obtain an award if the employer has taken rights in a patent for the invention and the benefit obtained by the employee from the transfer of his rights to the employer is inadequate in relation to the benefit which the employer obtains from the patent. This provision recognises that an employee and his employer have a special relationship and that it is only equitable that the employee should have a right to a review of the transaction entered into with his employer.
Jurisdiction over disputes is given to the court or the Comptroller and it will be for the plaintiff employee to choose where to lay his legal claim. He cannot be compelled to enter into protracted and expensive litigation before the High Court and it is right that he should have that option.
However, if there is in operation a collective agreement negotiated between management and the trade union, that jurisdiction is ousted. Indeed, it is expected that in most cases disputes of this kind will be settled sensibly at factory level like any other industrial relations matters, and will not proceed along the lines which would be possible.
Any award made by the court or the Comptroller has to correspond to a fair share of the benefit derived from the patent and, for guidance, Clause 38 refers to certain factors which should be taken into account. Clause 39 prevents for the future an employer taking advantage of the weak bargaining position of his employee by requiring him to sign away any rights that he may have in inventions that he later makes. As I have said, that is one of the defects of the present law which the Bill removes.
Certain changes were made to Parts I and III in another place, but although they were numerous the basic structure of the Bill remains largely untouched. Only in a very few cases were they made necessary by second thoughts on policy issues. The bulk of the amendments—not all moved by the Government, by any means—were concerned with

detailed improvements and refinements in an exceedingly complex mix of substantive and procedural law.
However, the Government are concerned about the removal, on the insistence of noble Lords in Opposition, of the clause relating to inventions the publication of which is prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public. This leaves the Bill gravely weakened. Without that provision, the protection of inventions in the defence field would be impossible, and the Patent Office would be obliged to publish the inventions the knowledge of which could do great harm to the public. Therefore, we propose at a later stage to reinstate that provision in the Bill.
Also we have doubts about the changes that have been made concerning the term of 1949 Act patents, and this is being urgently considered by the Standing Advisory Committee because the relevant provisions were firmly based on recommendations of that Committee.
After reflecting further on the debates in another place, we have decided to take powers to enable the comptroller to make rules to enable him to be assisted by outside advisers when dealing, for instance, with disputes about employees' inventions or compulsory licences under the provisions of Clause 45.
As well there is a small number of outstanding points, some of which are purely drafting, which may need attention in Committee.

Mr. John Lee: Before my hon. Friend comes to his peroration, will he say a word about the powers of the Crown to take over proprietary rights? I think that the provisions of Clause 62 of the Bill are most applicable here, but the equivalent provisions in the 1949 Act were rarely used. I can think of instances where they might have been used, for example in regard to proprietary medicines. Will it be Government policy, if these provisons are repeated, and not whittled down, to use them rather more extensively than in the past?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend does me a great service by thinking that I had a peroration in a speech about patents. I do not know how this will operate in practice. Certainly we have inserted the provision in the Bill. Maybe my hon. and


learned Friend will have some wise words to say about that when he winds up the debate, because I can think of none at present.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Minister enlarge just a little on the thoughts that he gave the House about the Comptroller being able to have outside advisers? Are these to be more than scientific advisers or can they come from the general area of business? Will they always sit with the Comptroller or will the Comptroller call on advisers when he thinks fit?

Mr. Davis: I understand that they will not be scientific advisers. There is power for scientific advisers to be recruited in certain circumstances under the rules of court, but in this instance they are not scientific advisers.
Before closing I must mention briefly Part II of the Bill, which contains an important group of clauses desgined to give effect to our obligations under international arrangements. I have already referred to the European Patent Convention and indicated its significance, and I need only say now that Clauses 75 and 76 are the main provisions for giving effect to our obligations under this convention.
There is also the Patent Co-operation Treaty of 1970, the Community Patent Convention of 1975 and the Council of Europe or Strasbourg Convention of 1963. The latter provides for harmonisation of certain basic concepts of patent law. It is Part I of the Bill that implements our obligation under this agreement, an agreement which is not only the foundation on which the other international arrangements have been constructed but also serves the interests of those who may still wish to obtain patent coverage in Europe by the national route.
Then there is the Patent Co-operation Treaty which provides for a potentially worldwide system for sharing the work of processing national applications. This promises substantial benefit for patentees and a reduction in the burden on national patent offices. Clause 86 is the main provision for giving effect to this treaty.
Finally, Clause 83 makes the provision of the Community Patent Convention part of our national law. This convention goes further than the European Patent Convention in that it provides for a single patent

to be obtained via the European Patent Office, a Community patent having a unitary and autonomous effect throughout the Common Market.
As explained in the 1975 White Paper, the Government intend in due course to ratify all these conventions. They are closely interlinked and also bound up with the new domestic code set out in the Bill and, when they enter into force, they should greatly benefit both industry and inventors in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world.
In dealing with something as complex and esoteric as this subject perhaps my speech may be likened to the situation in court when after half-an-hour's peroration of convoluted arguments on behalf of his client, during which no one had the faintest idea what he was talking about, counsel became aware of a growing restlessness. He said to the judge "Is your Lordship following me?" The judge replied "Only just, but if I thought I could find my own way back, I would start right now."
There have been times when I have felt like that myself in trying to speak on this complicated subject briefly and in terms that I hope are comprehensible to the House. I hope that I have shown that it is a worthwhile and indeed a necessary measure. I commend it to the House.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: This Bill, which the Under-Secretary described with considerable eloquence, is a very important item of legislation.
I congratulate him on managing a little joke at the end of his speech, given that he did not feel able to have a peroration. Of course, this is not a subject that easily provokes a joke. Nevertheless we were glad to hear one in the Under-Secretary's speech.
In speaking in this debate my purpose is limited and twofold. First of all, I want to congratulate the House of Lords on the remarkable task that it has performed in examining the Bill, and I think that in doing so it has greately improved it. Secondly, I want to draw attention to aspects that need to receive greater study in Committee.
It is our purpose on this side of the House to further the progress of the Bill


to Royal Assent in every possible way. I cannot see much purpose in reopening a number of matters of a slightly contentious nature that have already resulted in a compromise agreement between parties outside Parliament. Clearly, though, some of the contentious matters will be touched upon in Committee.
Nor do we need to have a complete repetition of the many debates that have already taken place in the House of Lords. It is possible for Parliament to drown itself in an orgy of words. This is the first year in my 11 years in this House that I have not served on the Finance Bill Committee and the House will know, when it thinks of the Finance Bill Committee, what I mean by an orgy of words. In this case, perhaps we can swim peacefully towards Royal Assent, although there will be some points that we shall wish to raise in Committee.
If the Minister can restrain himself from jumping up and down and being provocative during the course of this measure, we shall help him to get his legislation with the minimum of fuss. If, on the other hand, the Government decide to open up one end of any package agreement made in another place, we shall feel free to open up the other end. But as things are, I think that we can probably agree to the packages as they stand.
My first task is to comment briefly on the work of the House of Lords. I know of no other recent measure about which we can say so emphatically that their examination has been thorough, detailed and conducted with considerable knowledge.
Governments have tried to reform the House of Lords—normally unsuccessfully. Indeed, some noble Lords are not devoid of a passion to reform themselves. One must wonder a little at their reasons, because the other place in its recent behaviour has acted both as an excellent constitutional safeguard and, in the case of the Patents Bill, as a first-rate legislative Chamber. I wonder why we need to reform it at all. I appreciate that some Labour Ministers who pose as libertarians wish to abolish the House of Lords. Whatever criticisms Labour members may have of the House of Lords, on this occasion noble Lords have shown their undoubted experience and knowledge in an esoteric and specialised field.
Throughout the passage of the Bill several noble Lords with a lifetime of experience in patents tabled amendments and made excellent speeches. I wish to refer particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Lyell. They commenced the passage of the Bill with only a limited knowledge of patents, but they impressed their friends with their application and dedication. Indeed, they astounded favourably many experts by the manner in which they conducted themselves in the debates on the Bill.
The Bill is now before us, and I should like to make one cri de coeur. It is a simple admittance that the House of Commons seems, not unnaturally, to be rather devoid of the expertise that existed on this Bill in the House of Lords. Until last Thursday I was only vaguely aware of the world of patents—a specialised, complicated and technical subject. I regret to say that those of my hon. Friends who are competent in this subject are embroiled in the Criminal Law Bill and the Finance Bill, both of which are being dealt with upstairs. I hope that we may have the Government's co-operation—because we are anxious to hasten this Bill to Royal Assent—as to the starting date of the Bill in Committee, which is most important because we have a great deal of preparation to carry out. It will save a great deal of time if we are well prepared for the Committee Stage. Secondly, it would be helpful if some of the lawyers on this side of the House were free to give some assistance on this measure, which at the moment they are unable to do. I am not sure that the assistance of lawyers helps any measure to Royal Assent, but we could do with their presence just the same.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman thinking of putting an advertisement in a local firm of stationers?

Mr. Nott: We might try that as well. That kind of intervention is perfectly acceptable, and I am sure that it will not delay the Bill.
I was tempted to embark on the history of this measure and its undoubted importance, but I shall not do so in view of the limited number of people who will read this debate—and those who do so will probably know all about the history of patents already. Therefore, as the Minister went through the history of the


subject, I shall launch straight into the details of the Bill.
It has become a matter of considerable urgency in the past few years for our patent law to be rewritten in such a way as to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the European Patent Convention. The entire private sector in the patent system—the chartered patent agents, members of the Patent Bar and solicitors operating in patents—have been pressing for prompt legislation. In the United Kingdom, which has for many centuries been the cradle of the patent world, there has been strong concern that we should be the founder members of a European patent system.
Those concerned with patents in many areas of activity have been deeply concerned that the United Kingdom should be party to the European system so that we could satisfy existing clients and potential new clients, especially those in the United States and Japan, that we would be able to act for them in securing European patents. If that were to happen, it would not be necessary for Americans and Japanese to channel their European patent work through patent professionals in Munich or elsewhere in the Federal Republic of Germany.
The fact is that, despite some delays, we now have the Bill before us and there is little point in jobbing backwards. We are delighted that the Bill is in sight of becoming law. Undoubtedly, when it came to legislation those involved with drafting have been concerned with matters of tremendous complexity. There were the interwoven webs of four separate but inter-related patent systems; the national patent system, which was undergoing its greatest revision ever; the international system, under the Patent Co-operation Treaty, which was signed by about 46 countries in Washington in 1970; the European system under the European Patent Convention, which was eventually signed by 14 States in Munich; and the Community system, which the Nine had signed in Luxembourg in 1975.
Clearly, the original drafting of the Bill had to be rushed. Rightly, it has been considerably rewritten during the first part of its parliamentary journey. It spent 11 days on the Floor of the House of Lords and involved 37 hours and over 16 weeks of work in the Upper Chamber.

I am told that it earned the dubious honour of being the most amended Bill ever to have passed through that House in modern times.
I was not entirely happy that we were expected to deal with this Bill today, Wednesday, when up to Monday morning, at least, the interested people outside the House of Commons had not seen a print of the Bill as introduced into this House. I am not even sure that they have now seen it.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Yes, they have.

Mr. Nott: The Minister says that they have now seen a print, but that was certainly not the case the other day. It has not been circulating for more than a short period of time, and it has caused difficulties for interested parties outside the House because over 200 amendments were made in the upper House. However, I shall not dwell on that matter now.
There is one problem which arose because of the inadequate initial drafting of the Bill. The measure which has now emerged from the other place is in very much better shape than when it was first published. Certain noble Lords were not entirely satisfied on some occasions when they tabled amendments that the Government tended to take the view "We wish you to withdraw the amendment because we are not happy with the drafting", but Government spokesmen in the other place did not, at the time say precisely what the Government wished to put in place of the withdrawn amendment. Therefore, in Committee we shall inquire in a number of cases involving complaints made in the other place about drafting, where no reason was given as to why the Government wished to withdraw the amendment and no explanation as to what was to be substituted.
One such occasion arose when Lord Nelson sought to add a reference to the "marketing" of the product. The amendment was taken away for consideration by the Government, who came back at the next stage with the explanation—not that they took a certain view of the matter but that the parliamentary draftsman did so, namely that "marketing" was already subsumed within the reference to "working" in the Bill. We may want to consider that matter again. It is a drafting point perhaps, but there are a number of


items of that sort which bother us and on which we shall wish to touch in Committee.
Before I turn to other matters which we may want to look at in Committee, there is one more general point that I wish to make. It concerns the ratification and the eventual coming into operation of the European Patent Convention. We sent off the instrument of ratification on 3rd March. I believe that that made us the third country to send in such an instrument, only the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands having done so before we did. That is satisfactory. We are founder members, as befits our traditional position in the development of patent systems; and, unusually, ratification in this case was effected without our first bringing our domestic law into accord with that of the treaty we were ratifying. Instead, it was done on the strength of the Second Reading in another place.
I hope that it is widely known and recognised that the official Opposition gave their agreement to this procedure, presuming that the eventual enactment would tie up with the ratified Convention. We are glad to have done so, but we are anxious to see total ratification as soon as possible. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can tell us when he thinks the European Patent Convention is likely to come into operation.
I have some matters which I propose to raise in Committee, all of them arising out of points put by my noble Friends. Two of them in particular were directed to facilitating the obtaining of relatively inexpensive rulings on patent disputes. We were anxious that there should be, as far as possible, effective machinery available for disposing of matters in dispute without the necessary intervention of full dress High Court proceedings.
In the Lords, there was the matter of res judicata or issue estoppel, which was raised in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading, Ministerial acquiescence being secured only at the last of those three stages. Our provision permits someone sued for patent infringement to defend himself even though he may earlier have unsuccessfully run his defence in an attempt to secure the revocation of the patent in proceedings at the Patent

Office. This is important, for a prospective infringer of a patent which he believes to be invalid ought to feel free to attack that patent at the Patent Office level without fear of being left defenceless in High Court proceedings. In the event, as I have pointed out, the Government accepted on Third Reading the proposals my noble Friends had made on this point.
The other point added to the Bill at my noble Friend's instance is the provision for infringement disputes to be taken to the Patent Office for settlement, on the agreement of both parties and without limitation as to the amount of damages that may be awarded to a successful patentee. There was a similar provision in the 1949 Act but there there was an upper limit of damages of £1,000 and it was not much used, probably due to that limitation on the amount of damages. This, again, is something to which we want to stick, and I believe that the Government will be happy that that should be so.
There is, however, one aspect of that change at which we may wish to look in Committee, and that is whether it should not perhaps be extended so as to become available not only to patent owners but also to those who hold exclusive licences. I do not understand the procedures clearly as yet, but I believe that they are somewhat similar for those who hold exclusive licences as for those who hold patent rights.
One of the greatest worries of my noble Friends, which was, indeed, equally a concern of the Government, was to see that there was no duality of standards as between the patent protection in the United Kingdom, which could be obtained by the national patent route, and that which could be obtained through other conventions.
What has emerged on this occasion is the principle of legislating in a United Kingdom statute, not by writing in provisions which it is hoped will be found to correspond to those of a treaty but rather by incorporating by reference some of the words of such a treaty. The Under-Secretary of State said that we must draft our law in accordance with British law, but it will be interesting to see, in this somewhat novel procedure, if we draft details of foreign treaties into our law, using almost the same words, whether our


courts are likely to find in a similar way to the courts overseas, because where the question of duality is concerned this is an interesting and important issue.
I must apologise to the House, because this is not the most exciting speech that I have ever made.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): That is understandable.

Mr. Nott: I am glad that the Solicitor-General understands it, because I must confess that sometimes I am a little concerned whether I do myself. But I have not far to go. I come now to rather more general issues.
We are glad that the Government are not to seek to reintroduce the provision for the compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents, which was struck out of the Bill in another place. The Banks Committee had recommended clearly and unanimously that that discrimination against one of our industries should be repealed. The Conservative Government accepted that recommendation in November 1970, but, as we know, the present Government initially thought otherwise.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and I—and, I think, the pharmaceutical industry—were pleased indeed when the pharmaceutical industry was put on the same basis as other industries. We think that the Government are wise to have accepted the recommendation that Section 41 of the existing Patents Act should be repealed on the basis that Section 46 of that Act—the provision which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) invoked when he was Minister of Health—gives the Government all the protection they need against the abuse of patent rights by a private company in face of Government interests.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford stated in November last that the Government had no need to retain Section 41, which I am sure was seen by the industry as a very severe threat to the integrity of a patent which it might wish to register. Since there is enormous investment in research by the pharmaceutical industry, I am sure that the agreement that has now been reached—I have been given the details of it today—is a happy one, and I hope

that there will be no attempt in Committee to dislodge it. I am sure that that will not be attempted.
There are many other points on which our views elsewhere were accepted, and as they are a matter of record and as time is limited, I shall not go into all of them now. Suffice to say that we are glad to have secured a right of appeal from decisions of the Patent Office in regard to the dates to be attributed to patent applications, to have secured a right of privilege for clients' communications with their Scottish patent agents or other representatives in Scotland, and to have secured some protection for agreements between employers and employees regarding the protection of the confidentiality of inventors and other information which might be available within companies.
It is extraordinary that the Bill as originally drafted should have allowed employees to reveal secrets of their own firms, and we are relieved that Lord Nelson's amendment putting the matter right was incorporated in the Bill. I imagine that the omission was an oversight in the first place rather than anything else.
There are one or two other matters about which we may want to look in Committee and which may, in the minds of the Government, lie within the realm of controversy. The official Opposition in the other place forced only one Division—on the question of whether an applicant for a patent may continue, as in the past, to feel free to publish or use his invention as disclosed in his patent application just as soon as he has lodged his patent application. I know from my business experience that the ability to carry on as soon as a patent is lodged is a most important issue and I am glad that my noble Friends divided on the matter. Again, I imagine that the Government will not seek to change the position back.
There is the whole area of statutory codification of the law governing the ownership of inventions made by employees and the provision of a statutory award system. I believe that Banks recommended against any statutory scheme and in favour of voluntary schemes. I am aware that there have been differences of views with regard to employees' inventions, but in my view


what has emerged is probably a reasonable compromise. It is in the nature of a package agreement, and although we shall wish to have a debate in Committee, I personally would not wish to open up one part of this package and to throw the whole rather controversial subject into debate again. The view seems to have got about—I have been asked to say this—that the statutory provisions in the Bill on employees' rights were recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on Patents. My information is that the Standing Advisory Committtee did not favour a statutory scheme but that a working party selected from among its members was asked to try to agree what should be contained in such a statutory scheme on the basis that the Secretary of State for Trade, following Cabinet discussions, had laid down that there was to be a statutory provision notwithstanding Banks.
Perhaps I need only say that the compromise arrangements look susceptible to misunderstanding and possible disagreements within firms and that the proposal will probably have to be looked upon as somewhat on a trial basis. Although we shall wish to debate this, we do not want to open up the whole area again. But I am told by people who work within the industry—I know there is concern among employers—that conflict could be set up within firms. We therefore must regard this proposal as being on somewhat of a trial basis.
Upstairs we may also want to look at the clause dealing with the termination of patent licences on the termination of the patents with which they are concerned. We are not satisfied that if such a clause is retained at all it should extend not only to terminate the licence under the expired patents but also to terminate any know-how licence and any licence under corresponding foreign patents which may continue in force. That does not mean much to me, but I hope that it will mean something to the officials when they read it in Hansard tomorrow morning. It is purely a warning of what we intend to raise in Committee when we understand it.
Another matter that we shall need to raise is whether the provision regarding restrictive covenants in patent licences should or should not permit a licensor to

require that for quality purposes any un-patented ingredient of a stipulated purity or other specification should be employed notwithstanding that for the time being that raw material can be obtained only from the licensor or among United Kingdom suppliers. That is obviously crystal-clear to the House and I need not elaborate any further.
I now turn to an important point on which there is some disagreement. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may want to take up the question whether chartered patent agents qualified to practise before the European Patent Office should be better enabled by legislation to call themselves European Patent Attorneys in parallel with the usage in Germany and elsewhere. I know that the Solicitor-General will be saying a few words at the end of the debate. I want to express my own personal prejudice in this regard. I happen to be a qualified barrister never having practised, which is worse than not being one at all. I personally would not wish to see professional bodies—I am referring to the Law Society—which are understandably conscious of their members' interests and seeking to protect them, use their position to restrict the activity of other professionals. I refer to patent agents who by calling themselves attorneys thereby might more easily obtain business to compete with overseas patent agents, because it is in everyone's interests that our patent agents should obtain the maximum amount of foreign business.
It seems to me that it will help them if they can call themselves European Patent Attorneys. I understand that the legal position is relatively clear—that there is no exclusive right held by others which prevents them from calling themselves attorneys. That seems to be the legal position. But there has been uncertainty about it and, of course, we are talking about them calling themselves attorneys when practising abroad.
We shall listen carefully and sympathetically to what the Government spokesman may say with regard to the possible reinstatement of clauses concerning information prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public.
I now turn to the most difficult of all the matters still outstanding and that is the whole question of the two and five year periods. The Opposition will want


to see whether the Government decide to put forward a modification to the latest proposed for the life of old patents—patents granted under the old Act. Assuming that some of these should be given the possibility of continuing for up to 20 years, instead of up to 16 years, should this apply only to those having five or more years to run, or to those havink two or more years to run, or to some other tranche of old Act patents?
In the Lords the Government came forward rather abruptly with an amendment to insert a five-year period, but the Liberal peer, Lord Lloyd, forced an amendment and we now have a two-year arrangement in the Bill. There is a difference of view on this matter. There are some interests in industry that would like to see a return to five years but there are other interests that would like to leave the Bill as it now stands. I understand that the Under-Secretary will have a meeting about this to try to resolve the conflict. I do not know whether it is resolvable, but for my part I shall be happy if some compromise agreement can be arrived at which satisfies all parties. It may be the case that agreement cannot be reached outside the House but for the time being the Opposition will retain an open position on this matter.
I opened with a passing reference to the haste with which this legislation had to be prepared. I close by expressing the hope that the formulation of the rules to be made under this legislation should not be correspondingly rushed. They will also necessarily be very complex and the authorities will want to consult the expert practitioners outside as they have done to such good advantage with this legislation.
I apologise to the House for going on for rather a long time. I have not covered all the points. There are a number of other matters that we may wish to touch upon in Committee, but, as I have said, we shall try to narrow down the amendments that we table to relatively few. We are not seeking to have any very lengthy debates in Committee. We do not wish to go over all the old ground again. It really will be very much in the Government's hands as to how long we have to spend upstairs, because I would anticipate that the Government are likely to table many more amendments than we ourselves.
So, on this important and extremely technical and complicated piece of legislation, we shall do our best to master the outstanding issues by the time it reaches Committee, and I hope that there we can discuss in greater detail some of the points that I have touched on today.

6 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: After the erudite and able way in which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) wove his way through the 126 clauses of the Bill, I regret to have to disappoint him on two counts. First, I intend to return to the contentious aspects of the Bill. Secondly, I have to tell him that he overrates his colleagues in the House if he believes that we are all experts in patent law. I am not an expert in patent or any other law. I find the whole process of wading through Acts of Parliament formidable and scaring at times, and I am grateful for the way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench can from time to time put me right on matters which I find it difficult to understand.
Perhaps I may say one thing in mitigation. The hon. Gentleman asked that we should not indulge in an orgy of words, and I can assure him that I am not one of the most loquacious Members of the House.
I wish to refer to the missing clause, Clause 49, which was deleted in another place. Hon. Members will know that my interest is mainly in the provision of health care under the National Health Service. Clause 49 was simply a replacement of Section 41 in the original Act. That dealt with the whole way in which the pharmaceutical industry and others engaged in making similar products could be protected. The pharmaceutical industry has a large research and development programme and there has to be some protection for the investment that companies put into that.
It is 10 years since the Banks Committee was first set up. It takes some time to get legislation through this House. Those of us who concern ourselves with health matters were naturally interested to know what would happen to Section 41 in the new Bill. My anger at the elimination of Clause 49 by the other place has been tempered somewhat by the voluntary


agreement reached between the industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. But I am still not entirely satisfied. I have had a great deal of experience of voluntary agreements in industry. It goes back over a long period and covers the voluntary price regulation scheme for pharmaceuticals and the schemes that preceded it. Under such schemes those who are seeking to negotiate a good deal for the taxpayer always seem to come off second best.
I have a love-hate relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Look at the way in which modern drugs kill pain and heal the sick. We should consider the classic case of the elimination of tuberculosis. Without drugs that would never have happened. Consider the part that drugs play in any major operation. Consider also the fact that 46 per cent. of hospital beds are occupied by those suffering from mental illness or disability and the part played by drugs there. Consider how, for example, the whole scene on epilepsy has been transformed. All this is due to the research carried out by the pharmaceutical industry. That is the love side of the relationship.
When an industry has done so much good, however, there is inevitably a reaction against what appears to be excessive profit-making by that industry. I fear that as a result of eliminating Clause 49, excessive prices might be charged. The hon. Member for St. Ives touched on the subject and pointed out that the Secretary of State for Social Services had other weapons in his armoury. Only last Sunday, however, there was a report in the Observer describing how the taxpayer was paying three times the correct price for a particular drug. I hope that we shall look further into this matter in Committee. I concede that the Banks Committee recommended that the provisions of Clause 49 should go.
Various Ministers of Health have sought over the years to contain the drugs bill in the National Health Service. Strangely enough, the only Minister to have any marked success was the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who invoked the Patents Act and succeeded dramatically in reducing excessive profits on drugs. Since then, Ministers on both sides have been asked to do

something to contain the £500 million that the taxpayer pays for drugs. I am convinced that, good as the agreement with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has been, it is not good enough. Often the taxpayer has had to pay out large sums as a result of the way in which research has been used, not to find a new drug to do a new job but to produce a new variation of an old drug which enables another company to enter the competition and make a profit.
I think that I am alone in this House in believing that health care should be taken out of the market place. People who do the research should be paid an adequate reward for their services, as should the doctors, nurses, consultants and others. Perhaps I am a little puritanical in believing that it is not right at any time to make a profit out of those who are sick or disabled, any more than it would be right to make a profit from selling white sticks to blind men.
We therefore have a commercial situation on the one hand and the compassionate care of the sick on the other. Therefore, the Government should have the strongest possible weapons for dealing with profiteering. Although the Government might not be anxious to use Clause 49, it should be at their disposal, because without it the pharmaceutical industry has another advantage in the negotiations.
I am concerned about another point relating to Clause 2 and its effect on the pharmaceutical industry. Before the Banks Report there was the Sainsbury Report. That first report stated—the situation has not altered a great deal since then—that of all the drugs purchased by the NHS, 49 per cent. were produced by American companies and only 23 per cent. by companies based in Britain. Therefore, the way in which the Bill will operate on the international scene and the new arrangements provided in Clause 2 will have a special bearing on the price we are likely to pay for drugs.
The voluntary price regulation scheme partly provides that in fixing a price attention must be paid to the price which is charged overseas. Therefore a strengthening of the patent arrangements which exist between this country and others could benefit British users of drugs which are produced by the multinationals.
During our Common Market debates it was suggested from both sides that the EEC might enable us more effectively to contain multinational companies—some of which have bigger budgets than some member countries of the United Nations—than individual States were able to do. Clause 2 extends some of these powers and therefore I welcome it.
I hope that the fact that this concession has been given to the pharmaceutical industry and that their Lordships' amendment has been accepted will not encourage their Lordships to think that they have been given the green light to interfere with legislation from this House whenever they like. Secondly, I hope that it will not mean that the arrangements being made, recently announced by the Secretary of State—which will be closely scrutinised by many of us—will be affected by the elimination of the original Clause 49.
In the main, I commend the Bill to the House. It makes a long-overdue reorganisation of the original Act. I do not envy the lawyers who have had to draft it or those who will have to interpret it. As I have said, I shall be grateful to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have far more knowledge of these matters than I shall ever have if they will take on their shoulders the responsibility for everything save the matter in which I am interested, since I am totally incapable of taking it on myself.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in debate. He has often followed me in debate and has made the same kind of smooth and happy remark, but it is a genuine pleasure. So often we follow each other in fundamental disagreement, but never in any spirit of animosity. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's views on health care.

Mr. Pavitt: That respect is reciprocated.

Mr. Crouch: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
I declare an interest at the outset. As the hon. Gentleman and, I think, most of the House know, I am very much involved in the pharmaceutical industry.
The Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) have made this rather dry Bill as interesting as any two Front Bench speakers could have done, and I congratulate them both. Several times during their speeches I found occasion to smile, but I do not think that the House will burst into laughter on many occasions during my speech. I recognise that I am treading on rather thin ice. When I first came to the House, I was often asked by the Whips to come and speak on any subject. I was told that I could learn what to say by studying what their Lordships had said in another place. It was only after I had been a Member for some time that I realised that the Whips thought that I was a lawyer and that I was therefore able to pick up a brief at the drop of a hat. However I am not a lawyer, and I find this a difficult subject to which to address myself.
I listened to the debate in the Lords on a number of occasions, and I was interested in the Lord Chancellor's speech on Second Reading, because part of what he said touched on my own experience. He spoke about the importance of the Bill and generally about industry in this country, which is highly innovative and which relies heavily on patents for protection so that firms can enjoy the benefits of innovation and invention. The Lord Chancellor explained that this was why it was necessary to upgrade the patent law, which had become somewhat out of date; hence the need for this Bill.
The Lord Chancellor mentioned the man-made fibre industry, in which I used to work many years ago. He said that this was an industry that had benefited greatly from the operation of the Patents Act as a result of inventions that had earned a great deal of money for this country and had enabled a number of firms to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in certain developments, such as nylon and particularly terylene, which is polyester fibre, the product with which I used to be associated.
I am interested to see that certain clauses relate to the question of who owns a patent or invention. Under the 1949 Act—and as is still proposed by this Bill—it is the employer who has the right to an invention developed by a research chemist, research physicist or anyone else in his employ. Some new light is shed on


this problem—perhaps light at the end of the tunnel—to help employees who have the job of seeking out inventions and finding new projects. There is now some promise of reward for people who do such work and who often make remarkable discoveries.
I worked in the early 1950s with one of the most distinguished inventors that we have ever had in this country. He invented an entirely new product. He did not regenerate something but created a new molecular structure, polyester fibre, which was a British invention. He did this whole working in Accrington, Lancashire, for a company called the Calico Printers Association.
He had been working for 20 years in pursuit of this development. He told me that he had the idea of developing a new structure and a new fibre because he had worked after the First World War with one of the original inventors of viscose rayon. Many people claim to have invented viscose rayon, but he had worked with the firm of research chemists in High Holborn which had done it.
He did this after coming down from Cambridge, where he had had a distinguished career, and he was so excited at having worked with some chemists who had succeeded in breaking such a barrier in the early 1920s that he decided that he would like to do the same. Exactly 20 years later in Accrington he created a new molecular structure, which we call terylene and which is known throughout the world as polyester fibre.
Investment in this one invention has totalled thousands of millions of pounds. It has been of great benefit to this country, not merely to the company concerned and others associated with the original company. The royalties coming in as a result of patent protection have been very great, and of great benefit to this country in bringing in money from overseas.
The name of that man, who is now dead, was John Rex Whinfìeld, who was well known in Lancashire and in the synthetic fibre industry. The patent rights in this country for his invention were obtained by ICI, for which I used to work. I remember the occasion when we launched the product and had a great Press conference attended by 200 or

300 journalists. I cannot remember whether it was Marjorie Proops or some other well-known Fleet Street journalist, but someone asked Mr. Whinfield "Well, what have you got out of this?" He held up his glass and replied "A large pink gin". He was not ill-treated by his company. In fact, he was generously treated, and he had the satisfaction of doing an interesting job and knowing that he had created something of such a worthwhile nature. However, I was very struck by his remark and the fact that he had nothing out of his invention except the way of life that he was able to enjoy, which was not that of a rich man.
I am glad that in Clauses 36 to 40 there is some recognition of the need to upgrade the relationship between the employee and the employer in this matter of innovation and reward. What I have just said was purely by the way. I do not want to detain the House, but I thought that it was rather an important byway.
I suppose that I am treading on ground that is not really my own. Today is an occasion for the experts and the patent lawyers, but the House is thin on patent lawyers, although not so thin on learned Members in general. However, although my hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary may say that the Bill is dull and dry, it is not a Bill only for patent lawyers. It affects all of us. It concerns health care. It affects everyone in the country, because it is an essential part of sustaining industry and protecting people.
I wish to say something on a matter touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, the 20-year term proposed in the Bill to replace the present 16-year term. It is absolutely right that the term of a patent should be increased by four years. How the figure of 20 years rather than 16 years arose is neither here nor there. It is an arbitrary figure, but it is right. It is in line with the European period for the life of a patent. I maintain that the 20-year period is one of the major planks in the platform on which the Bill rests.
In the other place the Government wanted to limit the opportunity of existing patent holders to enjoy the benefit of this advance to 20 years in a way which I shall describe. It is known as the five-year rule.
The Bill was amended by an amendment proposed by Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, a distinguished patent lawyer who played a great part in steering the Bill through its interesting passage in the other place. I believe that he corrected this error, again with an arbitrary figure.
The noble Lord removed the parsimony with which the Government had treated existing patent holders by saying that it was not right to deny the benefit of this decision to those who already had patents that had been running for some years. The Government suggested that new patents should last for 20 years but that existing patent holders should not enjoy that benefit if their patents had been running for a certain number of years.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran removed that element of parsimony to some extent by proposing and having accepted an amendment permitting existing patent holders to enjoy the extra four years provided that their patents had not been running for more than 14 years of the present 16-year life of patents. I think that I have it right. The Government originally wanted to limit this benefit to patents that had not run for more than 11 years. There was an age gap of three years between the Government's original intention and the amendment and the Bill as it now is. Their Lordships wisely recognised the need to bridge that gap. They did not go all the way—there is a reason for that—but they granted another three years' patent life.
This is an important point. Perhaps we should not make this protest. Methinks that I "doth protest too much" about it. It may be that I am pushing at an open door. However, Second Reading provides the opportunity to express a welcome for the Bill and to go over some of the interesting arguments in the other place.
The Bill establishes the term of a patent as being 20 years. It is a recognition of the need for a longer period in which to work a patent. I think that point is universally accepted. It applies particularly to areas where research is expensive and long. One such area—there are others—is the area of which I have particular knowledge—the pharmaceutical industry.
I listened most carefully to the hon. Member for Brent, South and I made

some notes. The hon. Gentleman is anxious that the Government—they are 95 per cent. the customer of the pharmaceutical industry—should have the ultimate weapon to hold down prices. Rightly, he cannot stomach any more than I can profits being made out of the sick.
In politics and in Government there are many difficulties. Logic does not always apply. However, there must be a moral judgment. There can be no question of making profit out of the sick. But, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the pharmaceutical industry must advance if it is to continue.
Britain has one of the most advanced, innovative and inventive pharmaceutical industries in the world. We are lucky. It is a young industry, but it has developed rapidly. Many of the participants in the industry in this country are not British. They come here to enjoy the enormous background and back-up of a scientific and medical base that enables the complicated science of pharmaceuticals to develop.
We do not have a lot of copyists. We have an innovative and expanding industry that is contributing considerably to our export earnings. In this country drugs are carefully monitored by the Medicines Commission. They go through Government controls of absolute strictness. That is essential, as we have learned during recent years. Having gone through those controls, a drug is seen to be a successful breakthrough, a cure for disease, and it can find markets all over the world, whether it be for animal or other general health care.

Mr. Pavitt: I agree that is in our own self-interest and to the advantage of our balance of payments for every industry to export as much as possible. However, has the hon. Gentleman seen the results of exports of pharmaceuticals to developing countries in the Third World? Some of the effects have been disadvantageous. They have been advantageous to us because of the exports, but disadvantageous to people there because of the consequences for their health.

Mr. Crouch: These features must be carefully watched. I should be the first to subscribe to the argument that they should be watched. Drugs should not be misused.
I do not want to go into another type of debate, but I have usually seen drugs being misused only in countries which can afford to over-prescribe. There are many countries, even in the developing world, where the top echelons of society tend to over-prescribe. That is a waste of valuable drugs. Strangely enough, it does not happen in this country.
It was wrong in the past to have a sword of Damocles hanging over the industry by virtue of Section 41 of the Patents Act. It would have been wrong to leave the original Clause 49 in the Bill. There is a better, though not necessarily more comfortable, way for the Government to exercise the control that they obviously need to have over the pharmaceutical industry because, as I said, they are the major customer. That is by negotiation between the Minister and the industry. It is called voluntary negotiation. But, let us make no mistake about it, it is voluntary if one wants to stay in business.
The Government have control over the prices that can be charged. They can encourage the development of a drug and its use by general practitioners, hospitals and pharmacists. There are many levers of control in the Government's hands which are understood and recognised by the industry. However, the industry is saying that, if the Government hold the threat above it of a clause which provides that, at the drop of a hat or the whim of a Minister, they might open the gates by making patents available to others who can come in and enjoy the big market, the innovative side of the industry will pack its bags and leave this country.
Many pharmaceutical companies are multinational. It is as easy to develop research in Calais as in Dover. It is easy for them to go to Germany, where there is just as good an educational back-up as in this country. Indeed, in some smaller countries—the Netherlands and Denmark, and even Belgium—there is a sufficiently good educational back-up to encourage the taking of a complete research department of several hundred scientists and establishing it there.
The company in which I am interested is an American one. It has recently shown confidence in Britain by enlarging its research base in this country. It has become the second biggest research

department in the world, including those of all the multinational companies. It is second in size to only an operation in the United States and it employs about 500 people in this country, 75 per cent. of whom are graduates.
That shows a respect for the opportunity that exists in this country to develop products that will be sold world-wide, and it also shows respect for the fact that there is sufficient patent protection in this country to make it a worthwhile investment. This is not meant to be a commercial break but I wanted to answer the point.
In connection with this industry I want to refer to the extension of patent life in Schedule 1 of the Bill. Perhaps I am nit picking, but the pharmaceutical industry is much concerned with the length of life of a patent. With many products, once one has filed one's application for patent, one may go into production within a year, but that is not so in the pharmaceutical industry. The average time is six years and it may be as long as 10 years before a product is on the market, because it must be tested by the Government and pathological and scientific tests must be completed before such a product may be sold.
Even if the average is only eight years, that means that eight years of patent life are lost before the company has a chance to start earning and selling its invention in this country or abroad. The adoption of new inventions in pharmaceuticals is often slow and properly cautious. The real length of time during which the patent owner can enjoy and receive the benefits of his achievement and recoup his vast expenditure must be far less than the total 16 years, and it is probably more like half that period. The Government have now said that when the Bill becomes law all patents should be extended to 20 years.
The expenditure on pharmaceutical research today is staggering. I have looked at figures and they are measured not in tens of thousands of pounds but in millions of pounds. It is impossible to give exact figures, because they vary between different places and products. However, in the United States in 1972—and that was some time ago—it was estimated that the research and development cost of a new drug was about £14


million. Even if we spend only half of that, the sum is £7 million or £8 million. For all those reasons existing patents should be allowed an extension of up to 20 years or as near as possible to that.
The Bill provides some fairness for the licensees of existing patents. Schedule 1(2)(b) states clearly that the licensee will not be required to pay for loyalties for this extended period. I am glad about that. Schedule 1(4) says that any person who feels that he may suffer loss as a result of the extension may apply to the court for relief. I welcome that. A person may have provided the capacity and plans for a project, anticipating a 16-year life for it, only to have his efforts frustrated by that life being extended to 20 years. It is right that such people should be so protected.
The Bill is a most valuable measure as it has been amended by the Lords and I hope that we shall not tamper with the decisions of the Lords in this respect.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in speaking about the former Clause 49, which was dropped while the Bill was in the Lords. I hope that that matter will be ventilated in Committee.
The Minister in a concise speech has eloquently described the two separate labours that combined to produce the Bill. There was an attempt to harmonise our patent law with the European Patent Convention. There was a separate task—which it was almost Herculean to combine with the first in the same Bill—of making substantial and welcome reforms in our domestic patent law, especially with regard to the rights of employees. Therefore, from the Liberal Benches, I generally welcome the Bill.
However, there is a danger that is always associated with terrific tasks. It is that in attempting so much there may be some failures. While I do not wish to adopt a crabby tone to the Bill, I am sure that the House will understand that I wish to concentrate on the issues that have given rise to some concern in my party.
It is unfortunate, but thoroughly understandable, that this substantial measure does not substantially simplify the

elaborate and extremely expensive legal procedures associated with the operation of our patent law. As a result of inflation, the costs of patent litigation are quite horrific and they are usually counted in tens of thousands of pounds. We are not satisfied that appeals before the Comptroller-General instead of a court will necessarily be cheaper. They may be cheaper than appearing before the full panoply of the court, but we still await firm evidence that these procedures will really be cheap.
As long as patent law remains extremely expensive to bring into operation on behalf of an innovator or inventor, there will be substantial discouragement of something that is urgently needed in this country—the spirit of innovation. There is undoubtedly much advice that is soundly given by' patent lawyers to innovators—pointing out that the whole legal procedure is so expensive and cumbersome and that there are few robust decisions handed down in this sphere.
Innovators are told that they are better off to trust to secrecy and to exploit their inventions quickly before the rest of the world catches up. For that reason the tremendous efforts that have been put into the reform of the law will not be brought into fruitful operation in a sufficient number of instances.
I was disturbed by the hints which I understood the Minister to be giving about the amendment successfully moved in the Lords on Third Reading by Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It would reasonably extend the concept of the 20-year life of a patent to patents already in operation before the appointed day. The Minister seemed to be suggesting that the Government were having second thoughts about keeping that amedment in the Bill. We would strongly resist any attempt to tamper with the wise decision made in the Lords. I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Canterbury in that.
I now wish to refer to the protection given to employee inventors. Clause 36 to 41 represent a notable advance and the Government are to be congratulated on telling the working party the attitude that it should adopt, instead of tamely waiting for outside bodies—in what has increasingly become the corporate State in this country—to tell Parliament what they want to be enacted.
The cart has at last been put behind the horse, and that is welcomed. Employee inventors, especially those who are not required by their contracts of employment to give their minds to inventing but who happen to be interested in what they are doing and who hit upon a bright practical idea in the course of employment not in the research department, should be provided with expeditious and reasonably inexpensive procedures so that the whole of their life savings are not put at risk in litigation.
About three-quarters of all patented inventions come from employees. Many are employed for the purpose of making inventions, but there is in our skilled work force a great pride in devising something new, and anyone who represents an engineering constituency cannot fail to be aware of that element, which is still very much alive in this country.
Neither the Comptroller-General of Patents nor judges qualify by temperament or training to adjudicate compensation in these matters. Through no fault of their own they are almost invariably unable to put themselves into the shop floor situation that is the essence of these cases.
It has to be decided how far an invention is a result of the surroundings and equipment provided by the company and how far it is because of the sheer application, skill and imagination of the employee. The sort of questions upon which the Bill requires the court or the Comptroller-General to adjudicate are not matters well suited to judges or the Comptroller-General.
For example, the court has to decide whether an invention is of outstanding benefit to the employer. I doubt whether the word "outstanding" means very much anyway, but I am sure that this is not a matter that judges should be left to assess. The court will have to decide whether, by reason of all the circumstances of the case, it is just that the employee should be compensated. This is a matter on which business men and trade unionists, who have been involved in these matters all their working lives, are competent to hand down robust and prompt judgments, instead of an employee having to wait months for a laborious judgment to come from the Comptroller-General leaving both sides thoroughly dissatisfied.
We hope that a development at which the Under-Secretary hinted but which he did not elaborate fully, namely, the establishment of a panel of outside advisers with working experience in this area, will be introduced into the Bill. If it is considered that the Comptroller-General must be retained in an adjudicating position, we hope he will always sit with the outside advisers and that they will constitute an assessment panel.
I doubt whether this is a job for the Comptroller-General at all and I should prefer the chairman of the panel to be recruited from one of the legal professions. Whatever happens, there must be outside advisers and they must have an expeditious procedure. We see no reason to allow an appeal on points of fact, and the advisers will be able to hand down prompt and robust decisions.
The precedent that I cite is the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, which sat so successfully for some years after the war to deal with the claims of war-time inventors. That Commission sat without full judicial procedure and there was no appeal from its judgment. It handed down decisions that were generally acceptable and certainly robust and it enabled business to be transacted expeditiously.
There are a number of other subjects that we should like to discuss in Committee and I shall not follow the example of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in outlining them now. We wish the Bill well. We are glad that the TUC has made representations along similar lines to those that I have tried to express in great haste, and I hope that they will receive fair attention in Committee.

6.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): This has been a good debate. Inevitably it has been a technical one and, for that reason, I suspect that its merits may not be widely acclaimed. I have always hoped that in debates that tend to be dominated by lawyers there would be contributions, such as those that we have had today, from our lay colleagues with expertise in the matter being discussed.
When lawyers discuss reform of the law, they are not doing it for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their clients—the public. But not every provision in


the Bill necessarily lends itself to sturdy generalisation and our lay colleagues who may serve on the Committee that considers the Bill have my sympathy.
There are some matters on which opinions differ, but it is clear from the debate that there are some on which there is no difference between us. I think that we all agree on the value of having a system of patents to provide incentive for research and invention. We all agree that the problem is in preserving a balance between an adequate incentive for those who invent and a protection of the proper interests of the public.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), that if one seeks to be fair to everyone in these complicated matters, that will inevitably lead to provisions that are somtimes slow and expensive to administer. But we have to try to get a balance in that respect, too, and that will be our aim in Committee. Incidentally, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley for confining his remarks within so narrow a compass and thus allowing me time to reply.
I hope, too, that we all agree that everyone will benefit if we can harmonise the system of patents in our domestic law with the systems in other commercial countries, particularly in Europe. I welcome the assurance of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) that there is no division between us on the need to steer this Bill on to the statute book at the earliest possible moment.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was a much amended Bill, and I take his point that we have reason to be grateful for the attention that it received in another place. I shall follow him no further along the road he travelled after saying that, except to note that when the account is finally made up, the proceedings on this Bill will be chalked on the credit side.
It was much amended for the reason he gave. It was necessary for us to ratify the European Patent Convention as soon as possible and I am grateful for the assistance the Government received from the Opposition in doing that. This was why the consultations that normally precede such a Bill were necessarily briefer than usual, and for that reason it was necessary for the Bill to receive the detailed attention devoted to it in another place.
The hon. Member for St. Ives asked when the convention was likely to be operative. We are awaiting only the ratification of France, and it is hoped that that will be given shortly and that the European Patent Office will be established by the autumn and be receiving applications by June 1978. The House will be pleased to know that a number of important posts in the Patent Office have been assigned to personnel from the United Kingdom. The vice-president in charge of examination and opposition will be Mr. W. W. Wallace, who is a distinguished member of our Patent Office. We are pleased to see him here today.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not reply to all the issues raised in the debate. Some hon. Members said that they were simply giving notice that they would raise certain matters at a later stage.
There are four obvious reasons why I cannot reply in detail. First, this has necessarily been a brief debate. I have less time left to me than some hon. Members have taken. Secondly, I have discovered from experience that when lawyers take up the time of the House on technical matters, the reaction of other hon. Members includes a certain amount of irritation. Thirdly, if we do discuss technical matters, we must get them right. I claim no expertise in this branch of the law. The House does not share the expertise available in another place, and I do not claim to remedy that defect. Fourthly, much attention was given to these matters at an earlier stage of the Bill. Hon. Members will already be aware of the arguments.
The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke of the problems of draftsmanship when legislating to bring United Kingdom law into accord with the law of the European Community, with an international convention—as we are here—or with that of other countries generally. I pay tribute to the way in which the draftsman has approached that task.
He has achieved the result in three ways: first, where possible by adopting the terms used in the convention; secondly, by giving guidance to the courts about the intention of the draftsman—an example of that is in Clause 124(7)—thirdly, he has incorporated some of the provisions of the convention directly into United Kingdom law, as in Clause 83.
I commend the way in which the draftsman has approached the problem. I accept that he might have given some problems to the courts, but they will not be beyond the capacity of the courts to solve.
A matter which occupied much of the time of the debate was the five-year rule on the extension of the period of validity. Obviously, it is a matter in which we must balance the interests of the inventors against those of the public. The solution originally in the Bill was that proposed by the Standing Advisory Committee. I appreciate that there may be commercial companies that plan their arrangements on the basis that a patent will terminate on a certain date and invest accordingly. I admit that we are proposing to legislate retrospectively, and that might have an adverse effect, not upon the inventors, but on others. And of course, it takes longer these days to recover development costs.
I understand that there will be a meeting tomorrow with the Standing Advisory Committee. The Government's concern is simply to see that the solution reached is regarded as satisfactory by as many as possible of the interests concerned.
We have had a mini-debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). The House and the public owe a great deal to the expertise and the attention that they have given to this subject over a number of years.
The 1949 Act provided a procedure for the compulsory grant of licences in respect of patents for medicines. That was disliked by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Banks Committee recommended its removal. But, after consultations, Clause 49 of the Bill was included. It was removed in another place and agreement has now been reached with the pharmaceutical industry, so the legislative history will rest there. That may not satisfy my hon. Friend. It is a matter of judgment whether one acts more effectively by including something in a statute or by reaching an agreement. I cannot say more than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South mentioned a case in which excessive

prices were charged. If it is the case I have in mind, they did not result from a patent problem. The case was concerned with people who were buying up and repackaging someone else's inventions, and selling them at an inflated price.
I turn now to the question of employee inventors. There is a great deal I should like to say on that subject, and I can no doubt return to it in Committee. It is a matter on which I feel more emotional than on some of the other questions, because my father was a victim of the present law on more than one occasion.
I welcomed the confirmation by the hon. Member for Canterbury that the present law is unsatisfactory and that something must be done. I appreciate that it will always be possible to improve on a package. But I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley will appreciate that it is a package that takes account of the interests of all those concerned.
As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, if we start removing particular bricks from the package we might reopen it to a point where it may not be acceptable to many of those who have indicated agreement. Obviously, the package is not sacrosanct, and it can be reconsidered in Committee. But we should be reluctant to reopen something—

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Can the the Solicitor-General confirm that the judges are not one of the interests involved?

The Solicitor-General: The method of assessing these matters may include some of the elements involved. But I do not wish to discourage the hon. Member from commenting on these matters.
I turn to the title "European Patent Attorney". The question is whether, on the one hand, the public are likely to be misled by the use of the term, bearing in mind that what is proposed is only the use of the word in the complete phrase, "European patent attorney". If so, does the danger outweigh the difficulty of the patent agents' profession in not being able to take advantage of a term the equivalent of which is in use in other countries? The Law Society is still considering the matter. But I am told that


its provisional view is that it is a question of balancing the interests, and that it is prepared to leave it to those who debate the Bill to see where that balance lies.
I should have liked to have said a great deal more. I shall not conclude with a peroration, not even with a funny story. My greatest contribution will be to attempt clarity on the legal issues. We may not find that we have written a chapter in parliamentary history, but it is a Bill, as the hon. Member for Canterbury said, that affects everyone, that will be of real benefit to commerce, and that benefit will be reflected in better living standards for the public as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40(Committal of Bills).

PATENTS [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a new law of patents applicable to future patents and applications for patents, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the following sums:

(a)any sums required for making payments under that Act to proprietors of patents or other persons in respect of the working or use of inventions by or with the authority of a government department;
(b)any sums required for making payments of compensation under that Act to applicants for patents who suffer hardship by reason of directions given under that Act for prohibiting or restricting the publication of information the publication of which might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public;
(c)any sums required for the payment of remuneration to scientific advisers appointed to assist the Patents Court constituted under that Act, to assessors appointed to assist the Court of Session in proceedings under that Act and to advisers appointed to assist the comptroller in proceedings before him;
(d)any sums required by any Minister of the Crown or government department to meet any financial obligation of the United Kingdom under the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention or the Patent Co-operation Treaty;

(e) any sums so required for the payment of compensation awarded to an employee of the Crown in respect of an invention made by him;

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by any Minister of the Crown or government department in pursuance of the conventions or treaty mentioned in paragraph (l)(d) above.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have to inform the House that the Private Business does not commence until 7 o'clock. We shall therefore wait for a moment—until 7 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL (By Order)

Lords amendments agreed to

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HERITABLE SECURITIES AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION, LIMITED BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

AGRICULTURE (HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]

7.1 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise the subject of safety in agriculture and, in particular, the death of my constituent Saul Ben Randall.
I think that I can best put the House in the picture by describing what the Minister said to me in a letter after I had made inquiries about this matter. Giving the background of the matter, what he had to say was,
on this particular farm young people were engaged to work on Saturdays on two tractor-drawn potato harvesting machines. They replaced teams of regular workers, employed from Monday to Friday, in order to complete


harvesting delayed by adverse weather conditions. Before work began on the first Saturday the young people were divided into two teams of five. In each team four worked on the harvester and were instructed to pick out the stones which were being lifted with the potatoes. The fifth member of the team was instructed to follow the harvester and collect in a basket any potatoes which had fallen from the machine and tip them into the trailer travelling at the side of the harvester.
On the first Saturday work stopped after an hour owing to bad weather. Harvesting again took place on the following Saturday when before commencing work the tractor driver operating the harvester subsequently involved in the accident instructed four of the team of young people to carry out allotted tasks on the machine and the fifth to walk behind the harvester to pick up potatoes into a basket. During the morning both the employer and his foreman visited the field to see the harvesting operation. The accident occurred immediately after the lunch break when it is believe that the five young people climbed on to the harvester to return to the top of the field to begin harvesting again. No one saw the accident occur although it was clear from the wheel marks in the soil that Saul Ben Randall was run over by the harvester.
This is a tragic instance of yet one more accident to a young person—he was 15—who has died in agriculture on a farm.
I want now to quote from the letter that Saul's mother wrote to me. She refers to the fact that there was an inquest. A verdict of "Accidental death" was brought in. Subsequently there was a court hearing involving the farm worker who was driving the tractor that was drawing the potato harvester, but at the time of writing nothing was known of what the subsequent actions would be or of their result.
The mother is speculating on what is likely to happen after the inquest. She says,
As you understand, such actions"—
if they be brought—
will not benefit us at all. Nothing can bring Saul back to us again. But I feel that you too will be aware of the dangers faced by youngsters working unsupervised with modern machinery. The agricultural worker is in many ways the Cinderella of the labour force; and because of the tied cottage system they do not speak up easily.
In your constituency many hundreds of schoolchildren must work holiday time on farms and I believe that you could help by urging the Ministry to prosecute each and every farmer not complying with the accepted safety standards.
After the accident the mother says,

The farmer sent us a typewritten note to say ' Please find enclosed postal order for £4·80 being the sum of one day's work for Saul Randall'—not even a regret or a word of sympathy; and certainly no hint that such things must not happen again.
I am sure that you will feel like us, that it must not, and hope that you will show your interest to the Ministry who have the case in their hands.
That is a poignant letter. I regard it as my duty to put the facts as clearly as I can this evening to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will take on board what I have to say.
The parents of this boy, Mr. and Mrs. Randall, are two splendid people. I met them after reading that letter. I know what this debate must cost them. By all accounts, Saul was a fine boy—I never met him. Having this debate means that the whole subject, which causes them the greatest concern and grief, has to be raised again. I have put this matter to them, and they have said to me, "Mr. Ellis, do what you can. There are other young people." That has been the spirit that they have shown throughout.
Nor were they wanting any degree of vengeance. I want to make that clear. An inquest was held. It resulted in a verdict of "Accidental death" I am sure that no one wanted to kill this boy and that the verdict was right. I have no quibble about the courts. There was a case involving a farm worker and there was no vindictiveness there. It was a tragedy for him as well.
However, I am concerned this evening to bring home to my hon. Friend the fact that if there is legislation to protect young people, it must be enforced, and, if necessary, it must be updated.
The boy's brother worked with him on that fateful morning. He gave his evidence. When he was asked further about the matter he said
Each of we five schoolchildren had had two turns of walking behind that day. Everybody rode uphill on the ladder when he was doing the 'outside' turn. Sometimes the driver stopped the harvester but sometimes we jumped on the ladder when the machinery was moving in a forward direction. I have no idea whether the driver knew what we were doing.
I have a verbatim record of the inquest and a picture of the potato harvester. I shall gladly give the picture to my hon. Friend. It is a big machine. Its ladder comes down immediately behind the big back wheels. If any person slipped while


standing on that ladder while the machine was travelling, he would go straight under a rear wheel.
The point that I want to make—I shall make it again before I resume my seat—is as follows. My constituency has a steelworks, too. Let the House suppose that we had a working practice that meant that a steel worker, on arriving at work, would suddenly find allotted to him five schoolchildren when perhaps he had had no training in supervision, safety measures, or anything else of that kind, someone merely saying to him "You have a job to do this morning. You are using a complicated and dangerous piece of machinery. Here are five schoolchildren to help you." Let us suppose that he placed them around the machine, got on the front to drive it and could not even see them. Let us suppose that the operation commenced and one of the youngsters became entangled in the machinery or fell, and no one saw the incident.
Later another person, whether it is in a factory or a steelworks, walking through the shop would find a dead body on the floor. That would be a cause célèbre. It would be taken up by every newspaper. There would be a row of great magnitude. However, in agriculture such an accident is apparently generally accepted.
I have undertaken some research and I have read the Committee reports of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972. When I read the reports I observed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. My hon. Friend is a great personal friend and he mentioned that the Committee had discussed farm safety and accidents involving young people when engaged on farm work. He suggested that I should look at the Committee proceedings.
I took up his invitation and I read that he put forward the proposition that fines should be increased where safety provisions had been ignored. He said:
I am not over-connected with farming in my constituency.
My hon. Friend is supporting the proposition that fines should be increased. He continued:
I do not think I would ever have bothered at all if it were not for the fact that a tragic

accident happened to a boy of under 15 who had been working for eight days on a farm in my constituency. Tragically, he was killed in a farming accident. I do not wish to reopen the case but it led me to look at farm safety and safety regulations. Being a safety officer in one of the more dangerous occupations in this country, the mining industry, I was shocked and amazed by what I found in agriculture and by the attitude towards safety in agriculture.
In the next paragraph my hon. Friend says:
Safety figures and regulations are shocking. From my point of view, the figures are nigh on criminal. Since 1965, 1,823 farm workers have been killed, 518 of them because of one type of accident—tractors overturning. Since 1965, 289 under-15-year-olds have been killed in farming. Those figures are shocking. I say that with a guilty conscience, not having picked it up earlier and because others who have been involved in another industry as safety officers have not more closely involved themselves with such tragedies."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H 21st March 1972; c. 656–7.]
As my hon. Friend said, he is a miner. Mining is a dangerous industry. From that point of view his remarks on this subject are significant.
I have been able to obtain accident figures since 1972. In 1973 in Great Britain there is a change in the figures because from that year onwards they relate to those under 16 years, whereas before 1973 they related to those under 15. In 1973, 120 farm workers were killed, 28 of them under 16. In 1974, 104 farm workers were killed, 30 of them children. In 1975, 101 farm workers lost their lives, 23 of them young children. In 1976, 102 farm workers died, 21 of them young children. The 1976 figures have yet to be confirmed.
I accept that we have changed the regulations and have tried to improve them. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on these matters extensively and will explain what has been achieved. It is wrong that there should be dual standards of safety in different industries. Throughout the country young people engage in what is a dangerous industry—I refer to agriculture—that employs sophisticated machinery.
It is not only the machinery that is dangerous, because farmers use such things as pesticides. Farming is becoming big business. I suppose that we are all guilty in that we have allowed young people to work in agriculture. It is accepted that young people will be about in the circumstances that I have described.
These events often go unremarked. There is a close relationship among those who work in agriculture. In many cases they live in small villages and they know one another. However, when people lose a child they are naturally affected by grief. It is a tragic happening. But my constituents seek to forget. They are not vindictive. Very often these matters are glossed over and conveniently forgotten. Some of us who have had experience in these affairs have known what has been taking place over a long period. We shall redouble our efforts to ensure that proper standards are observed.
I have seen the parents in this case and they are the salt of the earth. They are concerned to see that this sort of accident does not happen to our children. As their Member of Parliament, I can do no less than to raise the matter on the Adjournment and to introduce it on other occasions so that the House may focus its attention. That is our duty as Members and as Ministers.
It is difficult to obtain industrial accident figures and I hope that my hon. Friend will do some research. The figures are usually tabulated per 100,000, and it seems that on that basis there are more fatalities in agriculture than in most industries. There are between two and three times as many per 100,000 in agriculture. I do not suppose that there are comparable figures for school children that relate to other industries because the practice that obtains in agriculture is not so extensive elsewhere.
Surely we have a public duty. I understand that the provisions for enforcing farm safety have been placed with the new Health and Safety Executive. I know that there were those in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who wanted to keep that power for themselves. I was always of the other view.
I hope that the word will go out from this place tonight to the Health and Safety Executive that we expect it to be tough. We shall be looking for a reduction in accidents and fatalities, but when they occur we shall be asking for comparative statistics. We shall want to know what action is being taken. We shall want to know what fines are being imposed and the steps being taken to remedy the present state of affairs.
During the time that I have been the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe this case is the second fatality in a very short period. My memory may be slightly at fault, but I believe that it was about two years ago that there was a fatality in a strawberry field. Families were picking strawberries—I suppose that it is a pleasant thing to do—when the tragedy took place. A toddler wandered from its parents. A tractor was coming down the field between the rows and the driver never saw the child. The toddler was killed.
If I am belabouring the point I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I wish to stress that that sort of thing is happening in agriculture day after day and week in, week out.
Some of us intend to do all that we can to put matters right. If we do not succeed in reducing the number of accidents and fatalities, we are coming to the conclusion that we must introduce legislation to make it an offence for school children to be employed in agriculture.

7.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) for raising this matter. I appreciate the spirit in which he has raised it and what he has said about the spirit in which the parents of Saul Ben Randall have asked him to pursue the matter.
The safety of children on farms continues to be a matter of serious and continuing concern, particularly to the agricultural inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. I share their concern and should like to express my sorrow at the two tragic accidents to which my hon. Friend has referred. The Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has assured me that in his view there is no question of the application of dual standards towards safety in industry, by which I assume that my hon. Friend means in a factory environment, and safety in agriculture. However, there is a distinction in respect of the age at which young people can be employed in agriculture and in industry.
In the case of Saul Ben Randall, as my hon. Friend said, the driver of the tractor was prosecuted and found guilty of not taking reasonable care of the health and


safety of other persons, as it is put, and he received a 12-month suspended sentence. Thus, action was taken in that case under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Although the dangers of working in factories have long been recognised and legislated against, it is only comparatively recently that significant legislation for the protection of workers in agriculture was introduced. The first measure was the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 followed by the Agriculture (Safety, Health & Welfare Provisions) Act 1956. The former enabled regulations to be made to protect workers from the risk of poisoning when using certain specified substances. The second Act had a much wider application relating to accidents and health hazards on the farm including the provision of sanitary and washing facilities for workers and safeguards for young people lifting weights. Regulations were subsequently made to protect workers against bodily injury or injury to health arising from the use of machinery, for providing a safe place of work and for the avoidance of accidents to children.
Altogether, 11 sets of regulations were made under the 1956 Act. In addition the regulations made for the safe use of pesticidies have been replaced by revised regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which now embrace the self-employed.
It is the intention that most health and safety regulations will be made on an across-the-board basis but there will still be some which relate exclusively to agricultural matters. My hon. Friend will know that already regulations have been made regarding the preparation of written safety policy statements which apply to all industries, including agriculture. Also, recently, regulations have been accepted by this House regarding safety representatives and safety committees on a similar basis.
With the transfer of full responsibility for health and safety to the Health and Safety Commission—I am glad my hon. Friend welcomed that—the agricultural inspectorate has been strengthened and now comprises almost 200 full-time inspectors. During 1976, over 29,000 visits of inspection were made to farms when both advisory and enforcement functions were carried out. Since the new powers of the 1974 Act were made available in

April 1975, the inspectorate has made full use of them and in 1976 issued 212 prohibition notices and 877 improvement notices.
My hon. Friend referred to the letter from Saul Randall's mother and its reference to the need for prosecutions. As he said, it was a poignant letter. The inspectorate were also responsible for mounting 221 successful prosecutions during the year under the agricultural regulations and the general provisions of the 1974 Act.
It is the practice of the inspectorate to investigate all fatal accidents and poisoning incidents and the more serious of the reported non-fatal accidents involving workers. In 1976, over 1,700 non-fatal accidents—almost 40 per cent.—were in fact investigated. I hope that this will indicate to my hon. Friend, who asked for a tough approach, that the inspectorate rigorously pursues an active health and safety policy in agriculture.
Turning to the specific question of the safety of children on farms, I must say that this is a particularly difficult problem, almost peculiar to agriculture. We are all aware of the high figure of child fatalities—unfortunately amounting to 20 or so every year. This is an unacceptable situation. However, we have to face the fact that the farm, besides being a workplace, is traditionally something of a playground. It would not be practicable to ban all children from all farms—and my hon. Friend has not asked for that. We obviously would not want to do it. However, the overwhelming majority of farm accidents involve children at play and not at work.
What the agricultural inspectorate has always stressed is that all concerned—parents, employers and workers—have a responsibility for seeing that children are kept away from operating machines, are shewn where they can safely play and are adequately supervised. Every opportunity is taken by the inspectorate to bring home to the fanning community and school children the hazards existing on farms. My hon. Friend will know that for the recent EEC Farm Safety Week the theme chosen by the United Kingdom was "Children and Machinery" with the slogan "You can't play safe with machines". This choice reflects the continuing concern of the agricultural inspectorate about the number of children who


lose their lives on farms each year. The campaign was given the full support and co-operation of all major organisations in agriculture.
The week was launched at a Press conference on 2nd May by the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. This was followed by the first showing of a new children's farm safety film specially produced under commission from the Health and Safety Executive The film was designed to warn children about dangers on the farm in a way that they would understand and through characters with whom they could identify and it does this very effectively. Equally it has a message for parents and indeed every adult with responsibilities for children.
To coincide with the week, the Executive launched three national children's farm safety competitions through some 25,000 schools throughout the country. The EEC Farm Safety Week received very wide coverage by the Press, radio and TV, particularly in the regions. We hope that it will help to drive home the message that accidents do not just happen—they are caused. It is hoped this extensive campaign will achieve its objective of reducing the number of accidents to children on farms.
The employment of children on farms is governed by various statutory measures. There are a number of agricultural regulations which protect the young person under 18 or in some cases under 16. In the case of driving and riding on tractors and other self-propelled machines, the minimum age is fixed by regulations at 13. There is legislation governing the employment of children, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is responsible.
Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, local authorities are empowered to make byelaws on the part-time employment of children under compulsory school leaving age, outside school hours, in non-industrial occupations. The Children Act 1972 fixed the minimum age of employment at 13, but byelaws may also provide for the employment of children under 13 by their parents or guardians in light horticultural or agricultural work.
The Employment of Children Act 1973 empowers my right hon. Friend to introduce national regulations to replace the local authority byelaws. My hon. Friend will know that the introduction of these regulations was postponed for at least two years, in February 1976, because of the limited resources available to local authorities to implement them. Even so, when the regulations are eventually made, there is no proposal that they should prohibit the employment of children in agriculture. I know that my hon. Friend did not ask for that.
There are many light jobs on farms and holdings that have been traditionally undertaken by children and this applies particularly with small family businesses. I think it would be wrong to legislate to prohibit young people from performing jobs on farms which help the small family farm and encouraged the youngsters to take up a career in farming.

Mr. John Ellis: It is the whole atmosphere which is wrong. People say that they know the difficulties but that it is traditional to have young children around farms. But unless there is a new realisation of the dangers involved, we shall have to start thinking about making it an offence for children under school age to be around dangerous machinery unless the pattern of operations is changed. Then the agricultural industry and all concerned will understand that this is a serious matter. This is not just one or two isolated instances. These accidents happen here, there and everywhere all the time. We must break through to people. I hope my hon. Friend will agree with that.

Mr. Grant: I think that I can agree with that. What my hon. Friend says is right. Unless there is a further improvement, a whole atmosphere of pressure will build up along the lines that he has suggested and it will be very difficult for us to resist it. We have to achieve a further improvement and to bring it home to people. I believe that the measures that I have described and one or two others that are in hand will satisfy my hon. Friend that there is a great deal going on. It would be premature, however, to make any judgment that legislation is necessary as of now. Where there are known risks, regulations have been made and


these are kept constantly under review by the Executive.
The inspectorate has the advice of the Agriculture Industry Advisory Committee, set up last year by the Health and Safety Commission. This was the first such industry advisory committee to be appointed, and it underlines the importance that the Commission give to this subject. That Committee is considering measures designed to reduce the hazards to children on farms. Any recommendation that it puts forward will be carefully considered by the Commission, who will not hesitate to take whatever steps are felt to be necessary for the protection of young people on farms, including putting before my right hon. Friend any proposals for regulations. Also, I shall undertake to ensure that the Commission's attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks tonight.
But regulations are not necessarily the answer in all cases. Recognising that it is not possible, or even desirable, to keep children off farms completely, I would urge everyone fully to accept their responsibilities in this respect. Many accidents could be prevented if children were provided with safe areas in which to play away from form operations and other hazardous situations and were properly supervised.
With the co-operation of those concerned we should be able to achieve the reduction in the number of child fatalities in agriculture that we all want to see.

HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCEDURES

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Before I call the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant), I shall indicate the practice regarding additional Adjournment debates. If an hon. Member uses the opportunity—because it is not yet 10.30 p.m.—of seeking another Adjournment debate, it is the practice to see whether he can get a Minister to reply—otherwise there is no purpose in speaking to an empty Chamber.
Page 285 of "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Chair deprecates the introduction of such subjects in instances where due notice has not been given to the Minister concerned. I take it that the

hon. Member has given due or some other kind of notice but has been unsuccessful in getting a Minister to attend.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: I want to speak on the unsatisfactory nature of highway planning procedures. Following the very clear ruling that you have given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should tell you that an hour ago I rang the Department of the Environment and got from it an agreement that I could raise this subject. I rang again half an hour ago and was told that there was considerable difficulty in getting hold of the Minister. However, the Department assured me that it was trying to get the Minister. Whether he is about to arrive, I do not know, but I did get an assurance from the Department that it would try to have a Minister here.
Perhaps it will be right if I speak very briefly on this important subject of the unsatisfactory nature of highway planning procedure, and hope that a Minister will come in time to reply. I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to introduce Adjournment debates, so I suggest that I should speak now so that when the Minister arrives he can hear that part of my speech. If he does not arrive, then the Minister handling the next debate will be able to carry on from there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The problem is, of course, that one can hardly regard half an hour or even an hour as due notice. Ministers have engagements. While the Department has promised to try to locate a Minister, obviously it has been unsuccessful. I have read out the relevant part of "Erskine May", which shows that in the past the Chair has deprecated the holding of an Adjournment debate when there is no Minister to reply, and I deprecate it now.
If the Minister were to come in at the end of the hon. Member's speech, he would not hear the arguments, and that makes it rather awkward. It is difficult to reply to a speech that he has not heard. He might find himself talking about an entirely different aspect of the subject.
However, the right remains—and this is the essential point—that, Minister or no Minister and with the Chair deprecating it, if the hon. Member insists he may continue with his contribution.

Mr. Le Marchant: I hope that while deprecating it officially, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will feel that I am not out of order in taking the opportunity to say a few very brief words on this subject. I believe that the conduct of inquiries on road planning has been appalling in these past few years. I believe that the whole country is distressed at what is happening.
We should all congratulate the inspectors who, in extremely difficult circumstances, have carried out these public inquiries. They have carried them out, as we saw last week, at considerable physical danger to themselves. Therefore the House should send them warm congratulations and a message indicating very strongly that the minority who seek to abuse the right of the public at inquiries by their arrogance and behaviour are doing this country no good at all. Nor will the majority of people who believe in democracy allow the arrogant minority to succeed in their thuggery. Nor is there any question, as has been clearly shown, of this behaviour making the inspectors alter the course of their decisions.
We know that there have been cases of the public not being satisfied by the public inquiry procedure. The main cause for complaint about the procedure is set out in a booklet from the Department of the Environment issued in July 1974 which says:
An inquiry into a road proposal is not a court of law nor is the inspector a judge. An inquiry is held so that the public may have an opportunity to put to the inspector their views on the proposals, either for or against, and the Secretary of State can be informed by the inspector of all the material facts, points of view and arguments before reaching his decision. The inspector is given all relevant correspondence from the objectors to the proposal, and other interested parties so that he will be fully informed in conducting the inquiry and making his recommendations to the Secretary of State.
The main objection of the British public is that it is the Secretary of State for Transport who employs the inspectors. I believe that the British people are not satisfied with that situation. The Minister for Planning and Local Government was asked about the matter on 4th August 1976, and that passage is set out in column 1713 of Hansard. The Minister then refused to give any firm

answers and referred to a review of the public inquiry procedure.
It is the final responsibility of the Secretary of State whether he accepts the result put forward by the inquiry and by the inspector. I am in complete agreement with that, because there can be many circumstances after the inquiry has taken place which may alter the view of the Secretary of State.
I should like to put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that motor improvements have brought a great enrichment of life to millions of people who live in cities, whose roads have caused pollution and contain many undesirable elements that affect, for one instance, children going to school.
In my constituency in Chapel-en-le- Frith and Whaley Bridge there is a problem whether a bypass should be provided. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to bring to your notice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no sense in bringing it to my notice, because I have no ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Le Marchant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like it to be known that I personally feel that the people of Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge would benefit enormously from the provision of a bypass. I equally feel for the people on the surrounding land that is now blighted by a potential inquiry and who cannot sell their houses and consequently are suffering considerably as a result of this present situation.
What do I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Perhaps I should not put that question to you, but I should state my views on this matter. I believe that public inquiries should be held under the independent auspices of the Lord Chancellor's Office. I believe that such public inquiries should possess the powers of courts. Equally, I believe that payment for legal expenses should be made to private individuals who wish to object. At the moment it is wrong that a private individual who has good cause to object is not able to do so because he cannot afford it. Such people are fighting against the wealth of vast municipal organisations and in some cases against industry.
Finally, I wish to say that I hope that this matter will be pursued speedily because these problems should not hang about for so many years.

MR. AND MRS. JAMES TODD

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I wish to follow the comments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Perhaps I should also tell the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) that the Chair deprecates the futility of conducting a debate with no Minister present. This affects ministerial responsibility, otherwise there is no sense in conducting a debate of this nature.

Mr. Mather: I respect your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in touch with the Home Office and told the officials there that I intended to mention the subject of Mr. and Mrs. James Todd of New Zealand. The Private Office in the Home Office raised no objection and said it would do its best to see that the Minister arrived here as soon as possible. I expect that the Minister will arrive very shortly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Frankly, I do not see the purpose of this exercise. If the Minister comes in at the tail end of the Minister's speech, how can he possibly reply to utterances that he has not heard? I should be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman how long it is since the hon. Gentleman gave notice to the Home Office.

Mr. Mather: I gave notice to the Home Office about a month ago that I intended to raise this matter on the adjournment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman say a month ago?

Mr. Mather: Yes, a month ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was referring to the notice the hon. Gentleman gave the Home Office on this occasion.

Mr. Mather: On this occasion I telephoned the Home Office half an hour ago to inquire whether it was reasonable for the Minister to come to the House. The Home Office agreed that it was reasonable. I said that I expected to

speak within half an hour or so, and it agreed that that was reasonable.
The officials there know of this case because we have been in correspondence about it. I have given them warning that I intend, through normal means, to raise this matter on the Adjournment, so they are fully prepared for this debate. I do not expect that I shall raise any new questions of which they are not aware.
I shall attempt briefly to outline the case of Mr. and Mrs. Todd of Oxshott in my constituency. They are New Zealanders who are under a deportation order to leave this country. Their children were born in this country and are British citizens with British passports. Mr. Todd has a New Zealand passport and is a New Zealand citizen. His wife was previously a German citizen holding a German passport. On marriage she decided to become a naturalised New Zealander.
Their story briefly is as follows. Mr. Todd was born in New Zealand but did not enjoy the blessing of English patriality, because his great-grandfather had emigrated to New Zealand. In 1959 he went to the United States on a scholarship course and met his future wife. They were married four years later and came to live in England. He persuaded his wife to hand in her German passport and take out a New Zealand passport.
The couple then came to Oxshott in my constituency where Mr. Todd took up a situation in the Daneshill Preparatory School. In 1967 he was appointed joint headmaster. He had no formal qualifications such as would be required in this country. He became acutely aware of this and set about obtaining qualifications. He had the New Zealand equivalent of British A-levels, but they did not count. It would have meant that he would have to study for his English A-levels at an English college. He took the sensible course of returning to New Zealand to obtain the necessary qualifications at Canterbury University in that country. He took the whole family home with him. He thought it right in principle that the children should for a short period of time live in the country of his birth.
Mr. Todd made the usual arrangements. He let his house in Oxshott and retained his share in the preparatory school where he had been working. He


left the country in 1970. At that time, he had verbal assurance from the Home Office that the Immigration Bill, then in the pipeline, would not affect his position. He had asked in particular whether it was safe for him to leave the United Kingdom and whether he would be able to come back. He was given a verbal assurance that that would be the case. He returned to the United Kingdom in 1974, having completed his university course.
Mr. Todd returned with his three children, who had all been born in England and hold United Kingdom passports, and they then entered their respective schools here. Of course, at the time he knew the stipulations of the Immigration Act 1971, but the family were allowed into the United Kingdom providing that he did not take on any permanent work. So we have the situation of the parents entering this country on sufferance but their children entering as of right.
The ironical situation in this tangle over the nationality laws is that Mrs. Todd, having been born a German, could, if she can obtain her German passport back, stay here under Common Market regulations. But he cannot stay here under British regulations. Mr. Todd's mistake was to leave the country and go back to New Zealand. If he had settled here, there would have been no difficulty.
That is the matter which I wished to raise. One recalls that, when the 1971 Act was going through the House, these matters were discussed in great detail. In Committee there was long argument about patrial arrangements and whether they were the most suitable. It was decided in the end the people whose forebears had gone from the United Kingdom to other parts of the Commonwealth would, if their fathers or grandfathers had been born in this country, have the right to return. The unfortunate thing about Mr. Todd's case is that it was his great-great-grandfather who was born here, and therefore Mr. Todd has been caught in the tangle of this legislation.
I do not think that it was the intention of anyone in the House at the time that such a situation should arise. No one could then clearly foresee that further legislation would come about by which we became members of the EEC and whereby nationals of the other countries

of the Community would, through Common Market arrangements, have the right to come to this country and live here.
Therefore, we have the curious situation, apparently, that the only means, unless it is possible for the Home Office to relent in some way, for Mr. Todd to stay with his children, who have a right to stay here, being British subjects with British passports, is if his wife, who was born a German, can obtain from the German authorities her German passport again. Then the Todd family from New Zealand will have a perfect right to stay and work in this country.
I believe that such a situation was either unforeseen when the legislation was going through Parliament or his arisen since because of the development of events. But it has trapped this family most unfairly. What is being said now is "Your children can stay here but you, the parents, must be deported". I do not believe that it is right that that should happen to any family under our jurisdiction.
I know that the Minister has been looking at this case. I have corresponded with him. I know that the Home Office within the rules has done all it can to help the Todd family, but sooner or later the law will have to take its course. I hope that the Minister, when he reads my speech, will be able to give some fresh thought to how it may be possible for the Home Office to settle matters satisfactorily so that the Todd family does not have to split up, with the children being in one country and the parents in another.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who was not present when I made my observations earlier, I point out that there is no Minister present, as he will have observed, and there are no officials in the Box either. Therefore, I read to him from page 285 of "Erskine May" where it clearly states:
The Chair has deprecated the introduction of such subjects in cases where due notice has not been given to the Minister concerned.
Half-an-hour's notice is not due notice. The fact is that there is no Minister here. I have no ministerial responsibility as such. My job is to conduct the affairs of


the House from the Chair. In my opinion, what is happening tonight is a gross abuse of the practices of the House, and I propose to report the whole matter of tonight's incidents to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mather: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I very much respect what you have said, but is not the reason why we are in this predicament that another hon. Member took various actions as regards legislation before us in order to delay that legislation? That is why we are in this parlous state, business having ended much sooner than we thought it would. It derives from action taken last week by another hon. Member and not by us.

Mr. John Nott: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time.
The whole question revolves around whether due notice has been given to a Minister. In my opinion half-an-hour or an hour is inadequate notice. It is not due notice. In any case, no Ministers are present. What is the purpose, then, of addressing an empty House on a subject? Such an action downgrades the whole of the House of Commons to the status of a debating society. A speech becomes a soliloquy.

Mr. Mather: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I telephoned the office of the Minister concerned and it was perfectly accepted that I should go ahead with this debate. If it had been stated in any way that it was inconvenient and that the notice was too short, I would have respected that and would not have pursued the matter. But notice was accepted. I explained that it was short notice and the Home Office said that it would try to get a Minister here as soon as possible. On that basis I went ahead with my debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In such circumstances, in my opinion the hon. Gentleman should not have proceeded with his additional Adjournment debate, because it served no useful purpose.

Mr. Nott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept your view that an attempt to speak now is an abuse of the House, but surely if, on an occasion

like this, an hon Member who seeks to raise matters which affect his constituency—which is what I should like to do—has informed the Government Whips' Office, which I have done, do you not think that it is reasonable for hon. Members to be allowed to speak, in the sense that normally it is a practice of the House that there are Whips available on both sides of the House?
I do not necessarily seek an answer from a Government Whip, but I should like to make a speech about my constituency problems. I think that a Minister would have been here for my speech if one could be found.
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that my constituents are interested in what I have to say in this House about the problems in my constituency. Certainly if the authorities of the House say that this is a gross abuse of the procedures, I should have to accept that view. But I ask you whether it is not possible to take this unique opportunity to talk about our constituencies. No doubt a Minister will arrive in a moment, but until then we could use this unique occasion to the advantage of our constituencies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Government Whips have nothing whatever to do with it. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a Government Whip to discuss his constituency problems. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that when an hon. Member addresses empty Benches, with the occupant of the Chair as the sole other individual present, what we are doing is conducting a debating society. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that there are opportunities every week for hon. Members to raise constituency matters through making an application for an Adjournment debate.
The whole question revolves around the presence or non-presence of a Minister. I do not see a Minister present and I therefore think that the whole process is an abuse of the House.

Mr. Nott:: I do not seek to argue the points with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must point out that I have tried to get a debate on the problems of West Cornwall for the past five years and there has been no parliamentary time for me to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It amazes me to learn that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to get an Adjournment debate for five years.

Mr. Nott: There is now a Minister in the Chamber. I should like to take advantage of the Minister's appearance. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was present before me. I do not think that he was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Nott: I do not wish to speak before my hon. Friend. However, I should like to take advantage of the Minister's presence and give notice now that I should like to talk about the problems of the police in my constituency. I think it is a responsibility that comes within the purview of the Home Office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) who has indicated that he would like to give notice now—at five minutes past eight—that he wants to initiate a debate. As he knows, due notice ought to be given. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is due notice, I have another interpretation.

Mr. Mather: I had not quite finished speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when my hon. Friend interrupted me. If I may, I will conclude my speech.
I see that the Under-Secretary is present and I know she has heard of the case of Mr. and Mrs. James Todd. I am sorry that I was not able to give her more adequate notice. I hope that she is aware of the facts of the case. It would please me very much if she were able to make a short statement about the present situation and the deportation order that lies over Mr. and Mrs. James Todd.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished speaking about 15 minutes ago.

8.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I can give him a few facts about this case which, naturally, have been hurriedly produced.
Mr. and Mrs. Todd, aged 35 and 33 respectively, lived in this country from

1964 to 1970 but then left to live abroad. They returned in March 1974, saying that they wished to settle here. They did not qualify under the immigration rules, but were none the less granted entry for two months to allow Mr. Todd to make a case for staying as a business man. However, though their solicitors started corresponding with us in April 1974 and despite our granting the Todds leave to remain further until 31st July 1975, no evidence of entitlement to remain under any heading of the Commonwealth rules has ever been forthcoming.
On 8th September 1976 the Home Office gave the solicitors a time limit of one month in which to produce satisfactory evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Todd had a claim to stay. When we had no real response, we refused on 26th October to revoke their conditions or to extend leave to remain. As a consequence of the Subramaniam judgment, the Todds had no right of appeal. The case attracted some publicity at that stage, but the Todds are still here despite having had over the years the clearest possible warning that they are not entitled to stay without establishing a claim under the Rules and the necessity of their either doing so or taking their departure.
The next step is to serve notice of intention to deport them as persistent over-stayers under Section 3(5)(a) of the Act. They will have the right of appeal against both the making of a deportation order and destination, and this will compensate for their lack of right of appeal against the refusal to vary their stay. Pending the hearing of any appeal that they may make, should there be any further material developments—and certainly in view of the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight, which I shall read in Hansard—their case will be reviewed in the light of these developments.

Mr. Mather: Is the hon. Lady aware that under EEC rules if Mrs. Todd is able to reclaim her German passport the Todds would actually be allowed to stay in this country, but they cannot do so under British nationality rules even though the children have British passports? The parents have New Zealand passports and therefore the family is divided. The children have a perfect right to stay here and they are entering their schools, but the parents will be deported. That seems to be grossly unfair.

Dr. Summerskill: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman the up-to-date situation with regard to what the German authorities have decided on any application that Mrs. Todd might have made to them. But certainly when I have read the hon. Gentleman's speech I shall give him the up-to-date facts of the case and in particular an answer to that last point.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I listened, as I am sure the whole House did, with great interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your understandably correct comments a few moments ago. I hope that when reporting to Mr. Speaker, you will also report that, as usual, the Scots have set an example to all other hon. Members in the House and, indeed, to the Ministers in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. He was ready to start speaking when no Minister was present. That is what I object to. No Minister from the Scottish Office was present. That is all I am objecting to.

Mr. Taylor: In case there may be any reflection on the Minister, I should like to record the fact that I did give him what I regard as due notice. He immediately agreed to come at short notice and to answer the debate.
I am particularly grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for agreeing to come to discuss a subject which we both agree is very important. It would be fair to record that a Scottish Member and, indeed, a Scottish Minister have shown yet again how such matters should be dealt with not only correctly but also with the maximum of courtesy. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for agreeing to my raising the subject. I am also grateful to the Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Office for being present. I would point out how well the Scots do this kind of thing.
I want to raise the future of municipal housing in Scotland. This is an important subject because it affects the mobility of Scots. In Scotland less than one-third of the entire population live in owner-occupied dwellings. The latest official

figure that I saw put the proportion at 32 per cent. That is about the lowest figure in Europe and it is lower than two countries behind the Iron Curtain. The latest figure I have seen for Czechoslovakia put owner-occupation there at 50 per cent. In Yugoslavia it is 47 or 48 per cent. Scotland's figure, therefore, is particularly low, and that makes it important for the Government to consider changing their policy.
There is a case for council houses and houses owned by public authorities to be offered for sale to sitting tenants. At its recent conference in Perth my party made it clear that when it came back to power it would oblige local councils to offer houses for sale at a substantial discount to sitting tenants.
The Minister cannot complain that I have not given him sufficient notice for the debate. On 23rd March I gave notice at Question Time that I would seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The Minister has therefore had two months in which to prepare himself. On that occasion I was asking him how many houses had been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland. The figures were dramatic. He said, as reported at column 1259 of that date, that sales of council houses to sitting tenants completed in Scotland were, for 1972, 645; 1973, 744; 1974, 171; 1975, 30; and 1976, an estimate of 80.
We can see, therefore, that there has been a sharp reduction. Councils have been less willing to offer houses to sitting tenants because they are largely aware of the answer they will get from the Scottish Office. I hope that tonight the Minister will do two things. First, I hope that he will make clear that the Government will change direction on the sale of council houses and that they will give positive encouragement to local authorities to proceed in this direction. Secondly, I hope that we shall have an assurance that the new Conservative-controlled local authorities—more than half the population of Scotland has the advantage of living in an area with a Conservative-controlled authority—will not be frustrated in their endeavours in this respect.
There is a sound argument for houses to be sold to sitting tenants. That would improve the mobility of labour—which is desperately important in a country which


is undergoing structural change in its industry. There is no point in having houses in one part of the country and jobs in another. We know from our constituencies that there are many people who would like to move house in order to obtain a job elsewhere but who cannot do so because they live in council houses and cannot get a transfer.
There is the tragic case of the person who wants to move in order to be near relatives—perhaps people of 80 or 85 years of age—who need constant attention. Owner-occupation does not mean that mobility can be given effect at a moment's notice, but it certainly makes moving easier.
I believe that many young couples, and particularly young mothers, go through a great deal of emotional stress because they cannot call on the support of an extended family. At Question Time today we heard about the Minister of State's mother-in-law. My mother-in-law lives just round the corner from us in Cathcart, and my mother lives just up the road. We therefore had the support of an extended family. If my wife wants to come to the House to hear a ministerial announcement, she knows that she has someone to come and baby-sit. The advantage of having relatives nearby makes life tolerable for many young couples. Many of the young mothers in some of the vast housing developments are taking pills because they do not have that benefit and suffer from emotional problems as a result.
There is another consideration which must be borne in mind. If a tenant improves his property by spending money to make the house more agreeable, he gets no credit for that. If the Minister spent £300 or £400 improving a council house of which he was a tenant, and if he then obtained a transfer or if he died and the house went to someone else, he would get no credit for that expenditure. If, through the efforts of residents and tenants, the value of houses in an area rises, the community understandably is entitled to a greater return on the sale price of the house. That increase is not available to the council tenant.
Another important reason why we should offer houses for sale to sitting tenants is that this would probably

be the only chance these people would have of buying their own homes. At one time it was easy to move into owner-occupation by buying a flat in a city centre for £600 or £700. This happened in Dennistown or Battlefield in Glasgow. However, house prices there have since rocketed. Unless council tenants get the chance of buying their own homes with a substantial mortgage and a discount, they will never become owner-occupiers.
Council tenants have been deprived of an advantage that owner-occupiers get, and that is the increase in property values. Property values have kept pace with inflation so that many tenants who have saved up to buy their own homes find house prices leaving them behind and see their chances of becoming owner-occupiers gradually diminishing. In those circumstances, there is a clear case for offering the houses to sitting tenants. If we do not do that, council tenants in Scotland face the prospect of paying more in rents and rates and of having nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
Some irresponsible Members of the Labour Party have made life more difficult in the council areas by exploiting the rents issue for political purposes. I have before me a document entitled "Labour News" which advised people to support a gentleman called Lambie who has subsequently become the Member of Parliament for Central Ayrshire. This was a dramatic pamphlet which said:
Yes, we have the lowest rents in Scotland—and were proud of it!
It goes on
For twelve years local Tories have echoed the demand of successive Tory Secretaries of State for higher rents for council houses.
And for twelve years the Labour-controlled Saltcoats Town Council have defied them.
It continues
The average rent in Saltcoats is 9s. a week—the lowest of any small burgh in Scotland…Now that we have a Labour Secretary of State we are looking forward with confidence to a new rents policy. New lower rates of interest on money borrowed for house building are expected. So, too, are higher subsidies.
Those were the days when there were irresponsible Labour politicians who sought to exploit the situation for political purpose. Since then the situation has changed. We now have a Labour Government, and the Minister, like previous


Ministers, has been telling local authorities that they simply must try to get their housing accounts more in balance. In this changed situation, I hope that the Minister will look on this matter objectively and from the point of view of the interests of the tenants.
What are the arguments against the sale of council houses to tenants? Some people say that the tenants do not want to buy. I pay tribute here to ex-Councillor Dick Dynes, who was unseated at the local government election. He was a member of the Labour group on Glasgow City Council who took the view that the council should sell council houses to sitting tenants. He was very brave in putting forward that view, which was not universally popular in the Glasgow Labour Party.
Mr. Dynes' committee authorised a survey asking council tenants what their views were on this subject. The poll showed two things clearly. First, the majority of council tenants thought that houses should be offered for sale to sitting tenants. There was no doubt about that result. A smaller proportion, only about 20 per cent., said that they would be interested in buying their own homes. The reasons were that they did not want to buy that particular house or were not interested in buying one in their area, but there is no doubt that the majority of council tenants would like this right to be available to them and to other tenement dwellers and council house dwellers. There is little doubt that the majority would like this facility to be available. This would be a way of extending the rights of council tenants.
The second problem is a more basic: the fear is that if we go ahead with a policy of offering every council house for sale, we might in certain circumstances make the housing position worse instead of better. Obviously, in a city area we might succeed in lling houses only in what could be classified as the popular or nice areas, with the danger that we should make it more difficult to achieve a social balance in the areas which remained.
If the Minister accepts my proposal, I hope that he will insist that there shall be a fair assessment of the realistic market value of each house, and a discount from that. If such a policy were brought

forward, it would be more than likely that in the less popular areas council tenants would find themselves paying less for their houses than they pay in rent. The strongest weapon for ensuring that not just houses in the good areas were sold would be to fix realistic market values, which would mean that the houses of tenants living in the more difficult areas would be better bargains. Such a policy would be one of the best ways of solving the problem as long as those areas continued to exist.
Such a policy would be good for the ratepayers. I believe that the latest published figures showed that the average council house in Scotland costs the ratepayer and taxpayer about £204 a year, or about £4 a week, averaging everything across the board. That is far less than it used to be, but I understand that that is the figure. This cost would be reduced if we encouraged the sale of council houses.
Second, it would be good for the tenants. It would give them more mobility and give them an opportunity of benefiting from improvemets that they make to their own properties. It would also give them more mobility to move nearer to their work or nearer to relatives. As the Minister must know, it would also encourage better use of the housing stock. In many areas there is the problem of having two or three people living in a five-apartment house, or perhaps one person living in a three-apartment house. Such people would like to move but cannot because of the difficulties with transfer arrangements: If more houses were sold people would tend to move much more readily to smaller houses. If people are in a four-apartment council house in a nice area they will not want to move out to live in a one- or two-apartment house unless they are offered one in an area in which they would like to live.
It would be excellent also to encourage greater social mobility in city areas. One of the things that worries me and also worries educationists is that when comprehensive education is imposed on a structured city which has large areas of council houses, large areas of owner-occupied houses and largely privately rented areas, there is the danger that we do not encourage the social mobility which is essential.
I come to the problems of Glasgow. The Conservative administration, which


is a minority administration, has, I understand, made clear this afternoon that it wishes to offer council tenants in Glasgow the right to buy their own homes. I understand that the details of the scheme are not yet published. I gather also—I speak here subject to correction—that this afternoon the Labour group made clear that it was not happy with the Conservatives' scheme. Therefore, full responsibility for deciding whether tenants in Glasgow will have the right to buy their own homes rests fairly and squarely on Scottish National Party councillors who hold the balance in Glasgow. Various views have been expressed about the Scottish National Party and its policies, and I am afraid that on many occasions we have found that on a clear-cut issue of this sort the SNP is never keen to say either "Yes" or "No".
I think that much of the support which the Scottish National Party has had—particularly the protest vote support—has come simply because, when a difficult problem arises on which an answer has to be given, members of the SNP tend to avoid the issue and to say nothing. The Scottish National Party is now on trial in Glasgow. As you realise full well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are issues on which a "Yes" or a "No" has from time to time to be given. Questions cannot be avoided for ever.
In Glasgow now, there is one specific issue which affects more than half the people of that city. There are arguments in favour and arguments against it, but if the SNP does not want to express a view on this direct issue, it will be condemned as irresponsible by the people of Glasgow and, what is more, it will be participating in depriving tenants of a right which would benefit the city as a whole. I regard it as obligatory now on the SNP to say whether it supports the scheme for selling council houses to sitting tenants. I hope that its members will have the guts to give a clear "Yes" or "No", and to give their reasons.
That is only one aspect of municipal accommodation in Scotland, and I am sorry to have spent a little longer than I had intended on the sale of council houses. There are several other issues to be raised. The Minister was rather unkind on the last occasion when we had Scottish Questions and I put to him the

possibility of further thought about house allocation. He will be aware that, unfortunately, there are areas where, rightly or wrongly, there is always suspicion about house allocations. I believe that the recent events in Glasgow inevitably added to the fears which people have about house allocation. In my opinion, the view which has been taken by both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, and, I understand the nationalists, on this issue is right, namely, that there should be full disclosure of what appears to be the very small number of cases in which irregularities take place.
On the other hand, I believe that there may be merit in the Minister being willing to authorise a unit of the Scottish Development Department to go round on a regular basis, perhaps every two or three years, to review and report publicly on the house allocation and transfer schemes of every district council. Without doubt, local authorities could learn a great deal from one another, and many local authorities could gain a great deal from advice from the Scottish Development Department on how their allocation or transfer schemes are working.
We know that local authorities tend to bring out one allocation system and then another. It would be helpful if the Scottish Development Department could make such an examination of allocation and transfer schemes and then issue a public report saying whether, in its view, this or that scheme was sound. Moreover, it could in a wider sense help to improve the general housing scene in Scotland.
It is absolutely crucial to make greater provision for the transfer of council tenants from one area to another. There is the exchange scheme which operated, and I believe still operates, in Paisley for tenants who wish to move from one area to another. But few tenants have benefited from it. We must make greater provision in that direction.
I hope that the Minister will have discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security to see whether we could go further towards encouraging the direct payment of rent and rates for those on long-term benefit. There is no doubt that in some of the larger schemes, tenants who do not have joint stock bank accounts have difficulty


in budgeting. They get money weekly, but they have to pay rent monthly. I understand that in some cases it can be done weekly. They have to pay electricity bills every two months and telephone bills every quarter. That is difficult to arrange if one does not have a bank account and has to depend on money coming in weekly.
I am convinced that many cases of evictions and family break-ups have been avoided where it has been possible to arrange for the direct payment of rent to be authorised for families on long-term benefit. I hope that the Minister will agree to have discussions with the DHSS about that matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) would agree about that matter, because he has taken a great interest in it.
I should like the Minister to give some indication of his thoughts on improving housing management. There is no doubt that housing management is a very difficult job. On the other hand, we have not paid sufficient attention or given enough status to those who have this difficult job of managing housing areas. There is an argument for looking at qualifications for housing management and ways of attracting people with somewhat higher qualifications into this difficult area.
Whenever I phone local authorities these days—I am sure that the hon. Member for Maryhill has the same experience—I am often told that the person I want is away on a course or at a conference. On the other hand, those engaged in housing management are usually available because they are busy people with a big job to do. We seem to judge the status of staff in local authorities on the number of conferences or courses which they have attended. Housing management staff are so busy that they do not get away as often as others. I think that there should be greater emphasis on training and on getting people to attend conferences on housing management. In that way we can improve the qualifications and quality of housing management staff.
I must not go on too long, as other hon. Members are waiting to speak. However, I should like the Minister's views on anti-social tenants. This is an emotive issue, as we know from our talks in the past about areas such as Ferguslie Park.

The Minister knows that if action is not taken ghettos tend to be self-creating and certain areas get bad names.
Vandalism is a particularly serious problem in many municipal housing areas. It is a problem everywhere, but particularly in certain housing areas. Crimes of violence also tend to be increasing.
There is a need for the Minister to have some sharp words with his hon. Friend who shares with him the job of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about these matters if he is not prepared to accept some of the excellent proposals put forward by the Conservative Party at its recent Perth conference. Has the Minister any new plans to try to cope with the serious problems of vandalism and violence in some of these areas? Such problems make life difficult for the vast majority of law-abiding tenants.
I hope that I have given the Under-Secretary sufficient time and opportunity to say something about these important issues. I think that he will agree that, irrespective of what the problems are, the authorisation of the sale of council houses to sitting tenants would improve the situation immensely. It would give council tenants more rights than they have now and would be of great benefit.
The Minister has often given the impression that the Conservative Party is not favourably inclined towards council tenants, but that is not so. On the other hand, some people have given the impression that council tenants are in some ways a favoured group in our community. I believe that there are strong arguments indicating that in many respects they have had a raw deal. If we were to authorise the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, they would have more rights than they have now and the finances of local authorities would be improved.
The Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers are constantly getting deputations from local authorities asking for more money and extra borrowing powers. The sale of council houses to sitting tenants would help to reduce the debts and the amount of interest that local authorities have to pay.
I want to end with a final quotation from this astonishing pamphlet, "Labour


News", which advises people to vote Labour because:
Under a Tory Government, increased rents meant more money for the money lenders".
I am sure that even the Minister would not accept that point of view because the Government have been encouraging local authorities to put up rents in exactly the same way as the Labour Party has alleged that other parties have done.
We want to talk about serious issues in a serious way. I hope that the Minister will give some indication of his thoughts on these points and that he will be able to deal with them all seriously.

8.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I am sorry I was not present when the points of order were being raised, but it was through no lack of courtesy on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I knew that the hon. Gentleman was raising this matter and I had agreed to reply, but I had understood that two other Adjournments debates would be heard first.
I am more than willing—and, indeed, I am in the proces of offering—to meet representatives of Glasgow District Council in the near future to discuss with that Conservative administration—although do not ask me what that administration might be in a fortnight or three weeks' time—the general housing problems and to find out whether I can be helpful in any way. That, indeed, will be the purpose of the meeting.
The council may decide to discuss with me ways in which the Government can help in any inquiry that may be held into housing allocation in Glasgow, as well as in the areas of other local authorities. The hon. Member for Cathcart got carried away at the Conservative Party Conference and he promised that if he became Secretary of State he would set up a special unit in the Scottish Office to carry out that job. However, it would be most unfortunate to do that at a time when we are trying to devolve power and responsibility.
That it would be so even if a Scottish Assembly had been set up, because it would be intolerable for any central authority to be looking over the shoulders

of properly elected public representatives given the job of carrying out housing allocations. I have offered to meet Glasgow Council to discuss broad housing policies along the fines that the hon. Member for Cathcart has indicated-Glasgow Council may wish to discuss with me the ways in which the Government could help—for example, by supplying the use of Government offices for an independent public inquiry.
It is my impression from what appeared in the Press this morning about what Councillor Mason said yesterday that the responsibilities of office are beginning to dawn on Councillor Mason and he is beginning to realise that governing is not just a matter of making public declarations. The councillor seems to be happy with a tripartite gathering on the housing committee, even though it does not include the Liberals. That committee is more than capable of carrying out any examination that may be necessary.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: I did not hear the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but may I intervene while the Minister is dealing with the relationship between central Government and local housing authorities? Does the Minister accept that there is now a sizeable number of officials attached to the Scottish Office dealing with social work and that some of those officials deploy their expertise entirely in dealing with housing management?

Mr. Brown: I could not agree more and I shall come to that when I deal with what was said about housing management by the hon. Member for Cathcart.
I also acknowledge the fact that although there is a small attendance here tonight—and I am glad to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen)—we do not discuss housing often enough. I welcome this opportunity of replying to the debate. The hon. Member for Cathcart has fairly raised some specific points to which I should like to reply.
On the contentious issue of the sale of council houses, I must repeat what I said earlier today. My party and I are not against the sale of council houses in


certain circumstances. That is the policy of the Government, although I recognise that there are slight differences of opinion in the Labour Party outside the House. In Glasgow the previous administration, led by Dick Dynes and his colleagues, went a long way towards if not getting decisions, at least opening up a discussion on housing matters. Dick Dynes deserved much more support from the electorate than he received.
There will be a Green Paper for England and Wales and another for Scotland. I am sorry that no SNP Member is here, but no doubt the hon. Member for Cathcart will agree that there are different problems in Scotland and that, within the broad framework of public expenditure commitments, we have to find Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. The Green Paper will provide an opportunity for discussion of the sale of council houses.
I am proud to say that the housing authorities in Scotland agreed before the recent elections to take certain action at the Government's request. They have agreed to draw up housing plans based on the requirements of individual authorities and to produce detailed plans for their own area.
However controversial it was in other respects, the reform of local government was good for housing. There are now only 50 or so housing authorities instead of 234, and we are expecting the housing authorities with bigger areas and more resources to produce housing plans and ways of solving the housing problems in their areas on the basis of what they see as the priorities. Whether the authority is Banff and Buchan or Glasgow, if it comes up with propositions that include the sale of council houses, we shall look at them sympathetically. If they are based on what local people want and what elected councils are proposing, they have every right to be considered constructively.
There will be changes in subsidy arrangements to equalise the burdens on housing authorities more fairly. Since we have asked for a comprehensive approach to housing and asked local authorities to look at the needs of owner-occupation, privately rented accommodation, housing associations, the need to encourage tenants' co-operatives and whether there should be improvements in the tenant

landlord relationship in the public sector, I can hardly complain if some come forward with realistic schemes that may include the sale of council houses.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman consider sending a circular to local authorities, perhaps after the Green Paper has been issued, setting out the circumstances in which the sale of council houses might be approved by his Department? Many councils have told me that they have not submitted applications because they do not think that they would be approved.

Mr. Brown: That would be premature. We have asked housing authorities to prepare plans. I recognise that with the change in power and control in some areas this might occasion delay. We originally asked for the plans to be in by July this year. The Green Paper is expected to be published towards the end of next month.
The Green Paper deals with matters other than the selling of council houses. The housing authorities have an opportunity to put forward their schemes. If Glasgow said that it was going to sell every house in Castlemilk, Easterhouse and Drumchapel, we should tell it to think again. But if it were to suggest selling houses in Myrtle Park, that would be a different matter, although it would affect people who wished to transfer to a good area.
I do not approach this matter in an ideological and doctrinaire manner. Local authorities are free to put forward plans. I believe that the Monklands District Council and possibly the Clydebank area have the highest percentage of publicly owned houses in Scotland. If they said that they wanted to submit a scheme to increase owner-occupation, that fact would be taken into account. I give the House that assurance.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that the Tory-controlled councils fought the elections on the sale of council houses. That is not right. It was certainly not an issue in the Provan constituency.
The hon. Member also discussed building up neighbourhoods. I agree about the importance of that. It is admirable for married sons and daughters to live in the same area as their parents or grandparents and it is equally important for a mother-in-law to live with the family where that


is possible. However, that does not necessitate the selling of council houses. Good housing management policy can achieve the same result.
The Glasgow surveys proved that council tenants who said that they were in favour of the sale of council houses did not necessarily want to buy the houses in which they lived. The sale of council houses or, indeed, the purchase of a house—council or otherwise—is equated in the minds of many with moving and a freedom of choice. When a tenant in Easterhouse is asked whether he would like to buy a house his reaction is to say "Marvellous". He thinks that he would lige to buy a house in Knights-wood or Mosspark. The surveys have not been done in sufficient depth. Although I appreciate the work involved, the surveys are only a superficial examination of why people say that they would like to buy a house.
I concede immediately that the great advantage of owner-occupation is mobility. If there is a tragedy and it means that someone has to reduce his commitments, that can be done more easily and more readily within the framework of owner-ocupation. If, on the other hand, there is need for a change of job or, indeed, the need to get a job, in spite of the efforts made by the SSHA and some co-operative local authorities, again I admit that, by and large, there is greater mobility in owner-occupation.
The tragedy of it is that in many of the working-class areas there is a failure to appreciate that people are not necessarily getting the best deal out of a subsidised rented system. That depresses me. They do not appreciate or they do not know the tremendous tax advantages that people in owner-occupation in certain circumstances can obtain. A process of education so required for ordinary people who, in certain circumstances, are not getting a good deal simply because they are scared, or reluctant, or just do not know how to operate the system to their best advantage.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned three other matters: housing management and, linked with that, direct payment of rent and anti-social tenants. We have had discussions with the DHSS about direct payment of rent. My experience is that

that Department is extremely co-operative. If there is a need for direct payment or a recommendation from a social work department or, indeed, from the Department's own information about rent arrears conveyed to it by housing managements, that Department is usually more than willing to put people on direct payment.
I do not see this arrangement as a panacea. There are far too many people in modern society who are willing to opt out of their personal responsibilities if they can get away with it. Therefore, while I am 100 per cent. in favour of helping families who are inadequate or who have pressing problems, I am still 100 per cent. convinced that we should not just throw this matter open and allow people to say "Let someone else take care of the rent. We shall not worry."
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a difficult matter to define. I believe that it can be done only on the basis of looking at each individual case. Nevertheless, in general terms there is no difficulty about getting the co-operation of the DHSS.
Anti-social tenants are a vexed problem. I see this problem being reduced through sound housing management policies. I cannot stress that strongly enough. The recent report of the housing advisory committee highlighted the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill about the lack of professional qualifications among staff in housing management. Indeed, the Scottish Office has nothing to boast about in that respect, because we have one full-time professional with housing management qualifications and in the social work services group I think that there are about 30 or 40 people with social work qualifications.
That is all wrong. We shall not get a reduction in vandalism and in anti-social behaviour, or in glue-sniffing or in all the other social problems that afflict people—many of them in the large housing estates—simply by the injection of more money, and we shall not get improvements simply by the injection of more teachers or, indeed, more social workers, however desirable that may be. We can get such an improvement in housing only by better housing management policies.
The first step in getting a community to accept greater responsibility is for the


people to become involved in their own affairs. This can be done through tenants' co-operatives, perhaps, or in some other way.
Let me put it even more crudely. If I had £5,000 to spend in a housing scheme, I would spend it by appointing an organiser for the local tenants' or residents' association. That would be my priority. Of course, such people can become political and anti-authority. But if we cannot get local people to respond, which would be the purpose of the exercise, to do that person out of his own job after having been in it for a short period during which he has stimulated community interest and a greater sense of individual responsibility—and my contention is that we shall not get that merely with expensive schemes of modernisation, environmental measures

and social workers going in—perhaps we should all chuck it.
I am quite clear about my priority. It is an improved housing management system that will encourage greater responsibility and interest, not the sale of council houses. It will be hard going for those who concern themselves with their own environment. They must ask themselves "What can I do to help?" rather than "When are they going to do something for me?".
That sums up my philosophy and the philosophy of my party in response to the many interesting and fundamental issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Nine o'clock.